Supreme Court decision upholds drinking age mandate

Nation's Restaurant News, July 13, 1987 by Ken Rankin

Supreme Court decision upholds drinking age mandate

The last clear shot at overturning Congress' controversial national drinking age mandate evaporated late last month. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld federal legislation penalizing states that allow the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 21.

The immediate effect of the ruling will be to put additional pressure on lawmakers in Ohio and Wyoming to prohibit restaurants and taverns from serving minors in those states.

But the long-range impact may be greater, according to jurists who fear that the high court set a dangerous precedent that will encourage stepped-up federal involvement in areas traditionally regulated by the states.

The controversy dates back to 1984, when Congress ignored food-service industry concerns and passed a Reagan administration-backed law reducing federal highway funds to states allowing the sale of alcohol to minors under 21. States failing to comply with the national drinking age law stand to lose 5 percent of their federal highway money this year and 10 percent in 1988.

Under the threat of those cutbacks, dozens of states quickly moved to raise drinking ages. But South Dakota challenged that congressional mandate in a suit attacking the national drinking age as unconstitutional.

In the final showdown, two of the Supreme Court justices sided with South Dakota. Sandra Day O'Connor held that Congress may place conditions on federal grants to states only "in ways reasonably related to the federal program.' A "condition that a state will raise its drinking age to 21' is not "reasonably related' to government spending for highway construction, she said.

The other dissenter, Justice William Brennan Jr., noted that the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition gave states sole jurisdiction over the sale of alcoholic beverages. "Congress cannot condition a federal grant in a manner that abridges this right,' he said.

The other seven justices, however, ruled differently.

"Congress found that the differing drinking ages in the states created particular incentives for young persons to combine their desire to drink with their ability to drive,' the majority ruled.

Calling teenage drunken driving an "interstate problem' requiring a "national solution,' the high court said the methods Congress chose "to address this dangerous situation were reasonably calculated to advance the general welfare.'

Even supporters of a national drinking age may soon have reason to cringe at those words. In effect, the Supreme Court has given Congress a green light to override virtually any state laws or rules as long as the objective is to promote the "general welfare.'

Even before the Supreme Court upheld the national drinking-age law, the number of states permitting alcohol sales to minors was dwindling. Colorado, one of the last holdouts, approved legislation to raise that state's drinking age effective this month, while South Dakota passed a similar bill that will take effect next April. That leaves only Ohio and Wyoming out of compliance with the federal drinking-age mandate.

Despite growing congressional interest in legislation to raise the federal minimum wage, Republican lawmakers are attempting to resurrect President Reagan's plan for a subminimum "Youth Opportunity Wage' for teenagers.

New legislation (H.R. 2710) introduced by Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.) would attempt to stimulate job opportunities for young workers by allowing restaurants and other employers to pay new employees under 20 less than the $3.35 hourly minimum rate during school vacation periods (May through September).