State of Nev. v. Skinner

• Citation: 884 F.2d 445
• Decision Date: 31 August 1989
• Docket Number: No. 88-2486,88-2486
• Parties: The STATE OF NEVADA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel K. SKINNER * Secretary of Transportation for the United States; and A.J. Horner, Chief of the Nevada Division of the Federal Highway Administration, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Page 445

884 F.2d 445

58 USLW 2156

The STATE OF NEVADA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel K. SKINNER ^* Secretary of Transportation for the United States; and A.J. Horner, Chief of the Nevada Division of the Federal Highway Administration Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-2486.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 29, 1989.

Decided Aug. 31, 1989.

Brian McKay, Atty. Gen. of Nevada, Carson City, Nev., Brooke A. Nielsen, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Nevada Dept. of Transp., Carson City, Nev., for plaintiff-appellant.

Shirley Smith, U.S. Attys. Office, Reno, Nev., Sandra M. Schraibman, Leonard Schaitman, and Robert V. Zener, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

Before TANG, REINHARDT and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:

This case raises the first challenge to the constitutionality of the national speed limit. The constitutional question is a fundamental one involving the distribution of powers between the federal government and the states. After fully considering the relevant issues, we decide in favor of the federal government and uphold the national speed limit.

In 1916, Congress enacted the Federal Aid Highway Act ("the Highway Act"). Under the Highway Act, the Federal Government provides funds directly to the States for maintenance of their highways. In 1973, Congress passed the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act which was permanently codified as a part of the Highway Act. It required the States as a precondition to receiving federal funds to post a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph) on all highways, including secondary roads that were not directly part of the interstate network. While Congress did not order the States to conform their speed limits to the new national standard, it imposed a draconian consequence for noncompliance, denial of all future federal highway grants.

The events giving rise to the current controversy began in June of 1985. In that month, the Nevada state legislature passed legislation increasing the speed limit on Nevada highways. See 1985 Nev.Stats. 678 Sec. 3, codified at Nev.Rev.Stats. Sec. 484.369 (1985). The new statute, inter alia, permitted the Nevada Department of Transportation (Nevada DOT) to post a limit of 70 mph. Because of the state's concern over the reaction of the federal government, the statute contained a self-executing sunset provision. It required the 70 mph limit to be lowered to the national speed limit if and when federal officials threatened to cut off state highway aid.

Section 484.369 went into effect on July 1, 1986. Acting pursuant to their statutory authority, officials of the Nevada DOT established a 70 mph speed limit on a thirty-three mile stretch of Interstate Highway 80 (I-80) between the East Farley Interchange and the I-80 junction with I-95 west of Lovelock, Nevada at 7:30 a.m. on July 1. The federal government responded with alacrity. Approximately sixty seconds after the state's action, appellee A.J. Horner, Chief of the Nevada Division of the Federal Highway Administration, formally advised the Nevada DOT that all future federal funds for state highways would be withheld unless the state reduced the I-80 speed limit so as to comply with the national speed limit. Concurrent with this notice, the 70 mph limit expired by its own terms. ¹

Nevada sued in United States District Court for injunctive and declaratory relief against enforcement of 23 U.S.C. Sec. 154. The state contended that because the Highway Act threatened withholding of approximately 95% of all of Nevada's highway funds, it had no real choice but to comply with the national speed limit provisions. Consequently, Nevada argued, the national limit violated the "coercion" limitation on the Federal Government's Spending Power. The district court rejected this argument and ordered summary judgment for the United States. Nevada appealed, and we affirm.

I. The Coercion Test in the Abstract

Article I specifically grants the Spending and Taxing Powers to Congress. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1. Pursuant to this authority, Congress may condition the receipt of funds, by states or others, on compliance with federal directives. The Supreme Court has clearly, and repeatedly, declared that "Congress may further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives." South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 2796, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) (quoting Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 474, 100 S.Ct. 2758, 2772, 65 L.Ed.2d 902 (1980) (opinion of Burger, C.J.)). Moreover, Congress frequently, and with an almost unblemished record of success, ² has under its spending authority promulgated legislation in pursuit of the general welfare that reaches beyond its other enumerated Constitutional powers. See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 2796, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) (collecting cases).

There are, however, limits upon the scope of the Spending Power. The Supreme Court has articulated at least four such restrictions. First, the exercise of the spending power must be in pursuit of the general welfare. See Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm'n, 330 U.S. 127, 67 S.Ct. 544, 91 L.Ed. 794 (1947); Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 640, 57 S.Ct. 904, 908, 81 L.Ed. 1307 (1937). Second, the conditions on receipt of federal funds must be reasonably related to the articulated goal. South Dakota v. Dole, 107 S.Ct. at 2796. Third, Congress' intent to condition funds on a particular action must be authoritative and unambiguous, "enabl[ing] the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation." Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 1540, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981). Fourth, the federal legislation may be invalid if an independent constitutional provision bars Congressional actions. The independent constitutional bar rule "stands for the unexceptionable proposition that the power may not be used to induce the States to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional." South Dakota v. Dole, 107 S.Ct. at 2798.

Nevada does not seriously rely on any of these restrictions. ³ Instead, it bases its claim on the indistinct coercion limitation first articulated in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590, 57 S.Ct. 883, 893, 81 L.Ed. 1279 (1937) and most recently mentioned in South Dakota v. Dole, 107 S.Ct. at 2798. "Our decisions have recognized that in some circumstances the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which 'pressure turns into compulsion.' " Id. (quoting Steward Machine, 301 U.S. at 590, 57 S.Ct. at 892). But cf. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security v. Marshall, 616 F.2d 240, 246 (1st Cir.1980) ("the carrot has [not] become a club because rewards for conforming have increased"). According to the coercion theory, the federal government may not, at least in certain circumstances, condition the receipt of funds in such a way as to leave the state with no practical alternative but to comply with federal restrictions.

Appellant argues that the threatened loss of 95% of its highway funds deprives it of any real choice; practically, it is forced, it says, to adhere to the national speed limit. ⁴ Ultimately, Nevada argues, the federal government's legislation would deprive the state of its sovereignty and violate principles of federalism.

The coercion theory has been much discussed but infrequently applied in federal case law, and never in favor of the challenging party. See Oklahoma v. Schweiker, 655 F.2d 401, 406 (D.C.Cir.1981) ("although there may be some limit to the terms Congress may impose, we have been unable to uncover any instance in which a court has invalidated a funding condition"). Certainly, one reason for the federal courts' lack of enthusiasm for the theory is its elusiveness. Nevada, while baldly stating that withholding 95% of highway funds constitutes "coercion," has not given us any principled definition of the word. We can hardly fault appellant, however, because our own inquiry has left us with only a series of unanswered questions. Does the relevant inquiry turn on how high a percentage of the total programmatic funds is lost when federal aid is cut-off? Or does it turn, as Nevada claims in this case, on what percentage of the federal share is withheld? Or on what percentage of the state's total income would be required to replace those funds? Or on the extent to which alternative private, state, or federal sources of highway funding are available? There are other interesting and more fundamental questions. For example, should the fact that Nevada, unlike most states, fails to impose a state income tax on its residents play a part in our analysis? Or, to put the question more basically, can a sovereign state which is always free to increase its tax revenues ever be coerced by the withholding of federal funds--or is the state merely presented with hard political choices? ⁵ The difficulty if not the impropriety of making judicial judgments regarding a state's financial capabilities renders the coercion theory highly suspect as a method for resolving disputes between federal and state governments. ⁶

Moreover, we would seriously question the vitality of the coercion test in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 105 S.Ct. 1005, 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985). See infra Sec. III. The purpose of the coercion test is to protect state sovereignty from federal incursions. If this sovereignty is adequately protected by the...