State of Okl. ex rel. Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety v. U.S.

• Decision Date: 03 December 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-6389,97-6389
• Citation: 161 F.3d 1266
• Parties: 1999 CJ C.A.R. 495 STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 1266

161 F.3d 1266

1999 CJ C.A.R. 495

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

SAFETY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-6389.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 3, 1998.

James Robert Johnson, Assistant Attorney General (Douglas F. Price, Assistant Attorney General, and John K. Lindsey, General Counsel, Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, with him on the brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark B. Stern (Alisa B. Klein and Daniel Kaplan with him on the brief), Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. for Defendant-Appellant.

Robin L. Rivett, Anne M. Hawkins, and Deborah J. La Fetra, Of Counsel, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, California, filed an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas H. Odom, Gregory S. Feder, and Marc R. Baluda of Arter & Hadden LLP, Washington, D.C., Bill Pryor, Attorney General, Billington M. Garrett, Assistant Attorney General, and Jack Curtis, Assistant Attorney General, Montgomery, Alabama, and William U. Hill, Attorney General, Cheyenne, Wyoming, filed an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before ANDERSON, HOLLOWAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

In this case, Oklahoma's open record laws and federal legislation preventing disclosure of information contained in motor vehicle records are in conflict. The Oklahoma Highway Safety Code, Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 6-117(H), and the Oklahoma Open Records Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.5, require that information about any individual identified in the records of Oklahoma's motor vehicle department be available for public inspection for a small fee. Any public official who willfully violates the state's open records policy is subject to both criminal and civil liability. Id. § 24A.17. In contrast, subject to certain enumerated exceptions, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA), Pub.L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 2099-2102 (effective Sept. 13, 1997) (codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721-2725), prohibits a state motor vehicle department from knowingly disclosing "personal information" about any individual obtained "in connection with a motor vehicle record." 18 U.S.C. § 2721(a). The DPPA authorizes the Attorney General to assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 a day against any state motor vehicle department that "has a policy or practice of substantial noncompliance" with the DPPA. Id. § 2723(b). The DPPA also provides for criminal fines and civil damages against any person who knowingly violates its provisions. Id. §§ 2723(a) & 2724.

The state of Oklahoma filed suit challenging the DPPA on its face as an unconstitutional infringement upon state sovereignty. The question presented is whether the DPPA is a valid exercise of congressional power to which contrary state law must yield consistent with constitutional principals of federalism and the Tenth Amendment's reservation to the States of all "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States." U.S. Const. amend. X.

I.

To protect the personal privacy and safety of licensed drivers, see 138 Cong. Rec. H1785-01, Congress enacted the DPPA which restricts the ability of third parties to obtain personal information about individuals identified in the records of state motor vehicle departments. The first section of the DPPA provides:

(a) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a State department of motor vehicles, and any officer, employee, or contractor, thereof, shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to any person or entity personal information about any individual obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record.

18 U.S.C. § 2721(A). SUBSECTION (B)¹ of § 2721 requires a state to disclose personal information in limited situations to carry out the purposes of federal and state laws affecting motor vehicles. Subsection (b) also sets forth fourteen exceptions to subsection (a)'s general prohibition, each of which allow a state motor vehicle department, in its discretion, to disclose personal information in certain instances. Id. § 2721(b). Perhaps the most notable of these is exception eleven, which is an opt-out provision allowing a state to disclose an individual's motor vehicle record--

if the motor vehicle department has provided in a clear and conspicuous manner on forms for issuance or renewal of operator's permits, titles, registrations, or identification cards, notice that personal information collected by the department may be disclosed to any business or person, and has provided in a clear and conspicuous manner on such forms an opportunity to prohibit such disclosures.

Id. § 2721(b)(11). ²

In its complaint, the state of Oklahoma sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the district court to declare the DPPA unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement. According to the state, the DPPA impairs the state's ability to manage its motor vehicle records by directing the state to regulate the disclosure of motor vehicle information in a specific manner. The state contends the DPPA unconstitutionally "commandeers" the functioning of its motor vehicle department by requiring the state to regulate a federal program. The United States defends the DPPA on the basis that it does not direct the state to regulate a federal program; rather the DPPA directly regulates the disclosure of state motor vehicle information consistent with constitutional principles of federalism and the Tenth Amendment.

The district court granted the state's requested relief and permanently enjoined the United States from enforcing the DPPA in Oklahoma. The district court held that the DPPA constituted an unconstitutional "command to state governments to implement legislation enacted by Congress." Oklahoma v. United States, 994 F.Supp. 1358, 1363 (W.D.Okla.1997). The court reasoned:

The State of Oklahoma processes approximately 1 million requests for motor vehicle information annually.... The system set forth in the DPPA would require Oklahoma to train ... [Oklahoma Department of Public Safety] employees and the employees in approximately 270 tag agencies across the State on when and how records may be released. Additionally, the State would be required to monitor the tag agents to ensure their compliance with the federal standards.

Id. at 1362. According to the district court, the DPPA unlawfully required the state of Oklahoma to create and maintain a system to enforce an unfunded federal mandate. Id. at 1363. Our jurisdiction to review the district court's judgment arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's determination of the DPPA's constitutionality, United States v. Bolton, 68 F.3d 396, 398 (10th Cir.1995), and reverse.

II.

In determining whether an Act of Congress is constitutional on its face, we afford the legislation great deference. Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 64, 101 S.Ct. 2646, 69 L.Ed.2d 478 (1981). We begin with the presumption that the challenged statute is constitutional. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 944, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983). We do not question the wisdom of the statute. Id. "Once the meaning of an enactment is discerned and its constitutionality determined, the judicial process comes to an end." TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 194, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978).

Ascertaining the constitutional line between federal and state power is among the most difficult judicial tasks. The Constitution confers certain enumerated powers upon Congress. U.S. Const. Art. I. To the extent the Constitution does not divest the states of certain powers, they retain them. Thus, the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 124, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609 (1941). To be sure, states retain a significant amount of sovereign authority. See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 549, 105 S.Ct. 1005, 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985). How much remains uncertain. We therefore look to existing Supreme Court precedent for guidance as to the proper division between federal and state authority.

A.

To support its argument that the DPPA is unconstitutional, the state of Oklahoma relies principally on New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992), and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997). Both New York and Printz set aside Acts of Congress on Tenth Amendment grounds. The state argues that New York and Printz establish a broad prohibition against federal restrictions aimed exclusively at state activity-a prohibition which, according to the state of Oklahoma, sounds the death knell of the DPPA.

In New York, the Court addressed the constitutionality of the "take title" provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. That provision directed state legislatures either to enact laws regulating the disposal of low level nuclear waste produced within their borders, or to take title to and possession of such waste with all its accompanying liability and problems. A state's failure to "choose" either alternative would result in the state becoming liable for all damages waste generators suffered as a result of the state's inaction. The Court held that the provision was inconsistent with the division of authority between state and federal governments because it commandeered the states' legislative process by compelling them to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. Id. at 174-177, 112 S.Ct. 2408. In other words, the law effectively required states either to legislate pursuant to Congress' direction, or to implement an administrative solution. The Court emphasized that a state could not decline to administer the program. No matter which alternative the state chose, it was...