Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Supreme Court: Congressional Statute Prohibiting States from Disclosing Personal Driver Information Is Constitutional-Reno V. Condon

2000; Cambridge University Press; Volume: 26; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

2375-835X

Tony R. Maida,

Legal and Constitutional Studies

Supreme Court: Congressional Statute Prohibiting States From Disclosing Personal Driver Information is Constitutional-Reno v. Condone-The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 19942 (DPPA) did not violate principles of federalism by prohibiting states from disclosing or selling personal contained in state motor vehicle department databases.3 State motor vehicle departments require drivers and automobile owners to provide personal information, such as name, address, telephone number, social security number and medical as a precondition for licensure or registration. The DPPA regulates the States' and private entities' ability to disclose this personal without the individual's consent. As enacted, the DPPA established an opt-out consent system that allowed States to infer consent if drivers and registrants were given, but failed to exercise, an option to block disclosure of their personal information. However, in 1999, Congress amended the statute to create an opt-in system that required States to obtain a driver's or registrant's affirmative consent before disclosure. The DPPA also regulates the resale or redistribution of drivers' personal by private persons or entities that purchased the from the State.4 South Carolina law conflicts with the consent provisions of the DPPA, and Attorney General Condon filed suit in district court alleging that the DPPA violated the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments of the United States Constitution.5 Condon argued that the statute required the State to expend resources to implement and administer its provisions, and therefore compelled State officials to enforce a federal regulatory program in violation of federalism principles enunciated in New York v. United States6 and Printz v. United States. The Supreme Court ultimately disagreed, relying on its decision in South Carolina v. Baker.8 First, the Supreme Court recognized that since personal driver or registrant information is, in this context, an article of commerce, its sale or release into the interstate stream of business is sufficient to support congressional regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.9 However, the Court noted that establishing Congressional authority over the subject matter does not end the inquiry. Additionally, the Court must ask whether the statute violated principles of federalism contained in the Tenth Amendment by commandeering State governments, as was the case in both New York and Printz.10 The Court found that the DPPA was consistent with New York and Printz because it did not require States to enact particular laws or regulations, nor did it require State officials to assist in enforcing the statute against private individuals. …