Janet Reno, Attorney General, et al. v. Charlie Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, et al. (528 U.S. 141)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 12, 2000 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 528 U.S. 141 · 120 S. Ct. 666
- Decided
- January 12, 2000
- Term
- October Term 1999
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Rehnquist
- Issue area
- Federalism
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
CHIEF Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA or Act), 18 U. S. G. §§ 2721-2725 (1994 ed. and Supp. IV), regulates the disclosure of personal information contained in the records of state motor vehicle departments (DMVs). We hold that in enacting this statute Congress did not run afoul of the federalism principles enunciated in New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992), and Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898 (1997). The DPPA regulates the disclosure and resale of personal information contained in the records of state DMVs. State DMVs require drivers and automobile owners to provide personal information, which may include a person’s name, address, telephone number, vehicle description, Social Security number, medical information, and photograph, as a condition of obtaining a driver’s license or registering an automobile. Congress found that many States, in turn, sell this personal information to individuals and businesses. See, e.g., 139 Cong. Rec. 29466, 29468, 29469 (1993); 140 Cong. Rec. 7929 (1994) (remarks of Rep. Goss). These sales generate significant revenues for the States. See Travis v. Reno, 163 F. 3d 1000, 1002 (CA7 1998) (noting that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation receives approximately $8 million each year from the sale of motor vehicle information). The DPPA establishes a…
Excerpt of a 17,208-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.