Reno v. Condon: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |citation=528 U.S. 141 (2000) |date=2000 |subject=Constitutional Law |appealed_from= |case_treatment=No |overturned= |partially_...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|appealed_from= | |appealed_from= | ||
|overturned= | |overturned= | ||
|partially_overturned= | |partially_overturned= | ||
Latest revision as of 03:40, July 14, 2023
| Reno v. Condon | |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 528 U.S. 141 (2000) |
| Date decided | 2000 |
Facts
Congress passes the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act which regulates the disclosure of personal information obtained by states’ DMVs. The DPAA prohibits states from distributing or selling drivers’ information without consent.
Issues
Whether the DPAA is a proper exercise of Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause.
Whether the DPAA violates the Tenth amendment because it thrusts upon the States all of the responsibilities for administering its complex provisions.Holding
Congress did not run afoul of established principles of federalism.
Rule
The DPAA is certainly a proper exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause.
The DPAA is like Baker where the court held that the law regulates state activities rather than seeking to control or influence the manner in which States regulate private parties. It does not regulate the States to regulate their own citizens.
