Reno v. Condon - November 1999
The Founding Fathers can certainly be forgiven for forgetting to mention motor vehicles in the Constitution, but by doing so, they granted the power to require and issue drivers licenses to the states under the Tenth Amendment. That much is clear and not at all disputed, but all powers have limits.
State departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) typically require applicants for driver's licenses to provide personal information including name, address, telephone number, vehicle description, Social Security number, medical information and a photograph.
After learning that many state DMVs were selling this information to individuals and businesses, the U.S. Congress enacted the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA), establishing a regulatory system restricting the states' ability to disclose a driver's personal information without the driver's consent.
In conflict with the DPPA, South Carolina laws allowed the State's DMV to sell this personal information. South Carolina's Attorney General Condon filed a suit claiming that the DPPA violated the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The District Court ruled in favor of South Carolina, declaring the DPPA incompatible with the principles of federalism inherent in the Constitution's division of power between the States and the Federal Government. The District Court's action essentially blocked the U.S. government’s power to enforce the DPPA in South Carolina. This ruling was further upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
United States Attorney General Reno appealed the District Courts' decisions to the Supreme Court.
On Jan. 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Reno v. Condon, ruled that the DPPA did not violate the Constitution due to the U.S. Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce granted to it by Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution.
According to the Supreme Court, "The motor vehicle information which the States have historically sold is used by insurers, manufacturers, direct marketers, and others engaged in interstate commerce to contact drivers with customized solicitations. The information is also used in the stream of interstate commerce by various public and private entities for matters related to interstate motoring. Because drivers' personal, identifying 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."
So, the Supreme Court upheld the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 and the States cannot sell our personal drivers' license personal information without our permission, which is a good thing. On the other hand, the revenue from those lost sales must be made up in taxes, which is not such a good thing. But, that's how federalism works.
