28

From South Dakota v Dole- the five standards SCOTUS used in that case to judge whether conditions to federal funds are constitutional:

  1. The spending must promote “the general welfare.”
  2. The condition must be unambiguous.
  3. The condition should relate “to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.”
  4. The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional.
  5. The condition must not be coercive.

I think for sure points 1-3 apply to the conditions Congress set on the relief aid.

The OPer tried to make a case for Point 4, but again, the wording of the aid is NOT that states CANNOT lower their taxes. That would indeed be unconstitutional.

The wording instead indicates that the relief aid cannot be used to OFFSET REVENUES LOST from a state tax cut. It does not say that a state CANNOT offer a tax cut.

There is nothing wrong with that…that’s simply the feds stating “this money is for revenues lost because of COVID, and this alone”.

Some might debate whether this is coercive. SCOTUS made it clear that coercion was irresistable pressure, and that applying SOME pressure is fine.

I don’t see how anyone can say this is a coercive act on the part of Congress. If a state can afford a tax cut, that’s a clear signal it doesn’t need the federal funding being offered.

Now- does the OPer or anyone else who thinks this move by Congress was “unconstitutional” care to rebut?

Source link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole