Reno, Janet, et al. v. Condon, Charlie, et al. (01/12/2000)

By: Stacy Forster, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Does the 1994 Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which bars state motor vehicle departments from disclosing ""personal information"" contained in motor vehicle records and bars individuals from obtaining or disclosing such information for uses not permitted by statute, contravene constitutional principles of federalism?

Brief

In 1989, up-and-coming actress Rebecca Schaffer opened her front door and was confronted by her stalker, Robert John Bardo. Bardo, who had obtained Schaffer's address from driver's license records, opened fire and killed her.

Prompted by Schaffer's death, Congress passed the Driver's License Protection Act to reduce the availability of such information contained in state driver's license records. The 1994 law prohibited state motor vehicle departments from disclosing most personal information contained in these records until the state first established procedures to notify individuals about a request for personal information, allowing them to waive their privacy rights before the information is released.

The law also said states that do not comply ""shall be subject to a civil penalty imposed by the Attorney General of not more than $5,000 a day for each day of substantial noncompliance.""

The law, which went into effect in September 1997, was unpopular among states because some have chosen to sell information on licensed drivers to commercial database and marketing firms.

In addition, states like South Carolina already had their own laws regulating the disclosure of driver's license information when this law was enacted.

South Carolina's attorney general challenged the constitutionality of the act in U.S. District Court, which ruled in favor of the state. The court declared that the act violated the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government for the states, because Congress relies on state officials to administer the law.

In the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, The United States argued that the act was lawfully enacted under the power Congress derives from the commerce clause, and that it is within the limits of the 14th Amendment.

A divided appeals court affirmed, maintaining that the act violated ""our system of dual sovereignty."" Judge James Williams wrote for the majority that the law stretched Congress' power under the commerce clause, which subjects state governments only to laws that can also be applied to private enterprises.

""Rather than enacting a law of general applicability that incidentally applies to the states, Congress passed a law that, for all intents and purposes, applies only to the states,"" Williams wrote.

The federal appeals court noted that the law could not be considered one of general applicability because private parties do not issue driver's licenses or regulate the registration of motor vehicles, and as a result, the act applies only to the states.

""Congress has not yet enacted a statute regulating the disclosure of personal information by all parties,"" the opinion said.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on May 17, 1999. Because of the Court's interest in federalism cases, review of this case was inevitable. Several states have challenged the law in courts around the country; it has been upheld in two federal appeals courts and struck down in two others.

Federalism has emerged as the most pressing and divisive issue in the Supreme Court in recent years. In June 1999, the Court issued a set of three rulings removing power from the hands of the federal government and returning that power to the states.

On June 23, the court ruled that states are immune from lawsuits filed by state employees for violating federal labor laws, from lawsuits by patent owners whose patents have been infringed by state agencies or universities and from lawsuits by people charging that states are engaging in unfair marketplace competition. All three rulings were decided by a 5-4 split.

""Congress has vast power but not all power,"" wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in one of the opinions. ""Congress must accord the states the esteem due to them as joint participants in a federal system.""

On Jan. 12, 2000, a unanimous Court held that states' rights under the 11th Amendment do not prevent Congress from protecting motorists' privacy by barring states from selling the personal information on drivers' licenses.

The 1994 Driver's Privacy Protection Act ""does not require the states in their sovereign capacity to regulate their own citizens,"" wrote Chief Justice William Rehnquist for a unanimous Court that had until this decision moved toward a more expansive notion of states' rights. ""It does not require the South Carolina Legislature to enact any laws or regulations, and it does not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals.""