Takeaway
In short, this case confirms that Congress may directly regulate States when they participate in interstate commerce, so long as it does not force them to legislate or administer a federal program governing others.
The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) generally prohibits state motor-vehicle departments from disclosing drivers’ personal information—such as names, addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers, photographs, and medical information—without consent, subject to specified exceptions. It also regulates private parties’ resale and redisclosure of information obtained from DMV records, and it authorizes penalties for substantial state noncompliance.
South Carolina law broadly allowed access to DMV information and permitted the State to charge fees for its disclosure. South Carolina and its Attorney General, Charles Condon, challenged the DPPA, arguing that it violated the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments. The District Court granted summary judgment to the State and permanently enjoined enforcement of the Act; the Fourth Circuit affirmed on federalism grounds. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.
Issue #1
Whether Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the disclosure and sale of personal information contained in state DMV records.
Holding
Yes. The DPPA is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power.
Reasoning
The Court held that personal information drawn from DMV records is an article of interstate commerce in the relevant context. States sell that information, and insurers, manufacturers, direct marketers, and other interstate actors use it to contact drivers and conduct business across state lines.
Because the DPPA regulates the release of this commercially valuable information into interstate channels, Congress could regulate its sale and disclosure. The Court therefore did not need to decide whether the States’ collection, maintenance, and distribution of DMV information, considered as intrastate activity, substantially affects interstate commerce.
Issue #2
Whether the DPPA unconstitutionally commandeers state governments or state officials in violation of the Tenth Amendment principles recognized in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States.
Holding
No. The DPPA regulates the States’ own activity as suppliers of motor-vehicle information; it does not compel them to legislate or administer a federal regulatory program.
Reasoning
New York forbids Congress from ordering state legislatures to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program, while Printz forbids Congress from conscripting state executive officers to administer such a program. South Carolina argued that the DPPA effectively did both because DMV employees must learn the Act’s rules, apply its disclosure restrictions, and risk penalties for noncompliance.
The Court distinguished those cases by relying on South Carolina v. Baker. A federal law may directly regulate a State when the State itself engages in an activity subject to federal regulation, even though compliance requires state officials to spend time, revise procedures, or alter state law.
The DPPA regulates States as owners and sellers of databases, rather than requiring them in their sovereign capacity to regulate private citizens. It neither directs the South Carolina Legislature to enact a law nor commands state officers to enforce federal rules against private parties. The administrative burden of complying with a direct federal regulation is an ordinary consequence of regulation, not unconstitutional commandeering.
Issue #3
Whether the DPPA is unconstitutional because it regulates States exclusively rather than through a generally applicable law.
Holding
No. Even assuming general applicability could matter, the DPPA is generally applicable.
Reasoning
South Carolina contended that Congress may regulate States only through laws that also apply to private persons. The Court declined to decide whether a general-applicability requirement exists as a constitutional rule.
The DPPA in any event applies to all participants supplying motor-vehicle information to the market. It regulates States as the initial suppliers of DMV data and also regulates private parties who receive, resell, or redisclose that data. Thus, the Act is not a regulation aimed solely at States.