Lawrence County v. Lead-Deadwood School District No. 40-1
1985 U.S. LEXIS 37, 105 S. Ct. 695, 83 L. Ed. 2d 635 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Supremacy Clause, a state law is preempted if it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. A state law that mandates a specific formula for distributing federal funds given to a local government is invalid if the federal statute explicitly grants that local government discretion to use the funds for any governmental purpose.
Facts:
- The federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act was enacted to compensate local governments for lost tax revenue due to tax-immune federal lands within their jurisdictions.
- The Act specifies that a qualified unit of local government 'may use the payment for any governmental purpose.'
- Lawrence County, South Dakota, contained federal 'entitlement lands' and received payments exceeding $400,000 under the Act.
- South Dakota enacted a statute requiring local governments to distribute these federal payments in the same manner as they distribute general tax revenues.
- Compliance with the South Dakota statute would require Lawrence County to allocate approximately 60% of its federal payments to local school districts.
- Lawrence County refused to distribute the funds according to the state law, arguing the federal Act gave it the discretion to decide how to spend the money.
Procedural Posture:
- Lead-Deadwood School District No. 40-1 filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit of South Dakota, a state trial court.
- The School District sought a writ of mandamus to compel Lawrence County to distribute federal funds according to the state statute.
- The state trial court held for Lawrence County, finding that the state law conflicted with federal law and was invalid under the Supremacy Clause.
- The School District appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
- The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, upholding the state statute as consistent with federal requirements.
- Lawrence County, as appellant, then appealed the decision of the state's highest court to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law that requires a local government to distribute federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act funds according to a specific formula conflict with the federal Act, which provides that the local government 'may use the payment for any governmental purpose,' and is it therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes, the state law conflicts with the federal Act and is invalid under the Supremacy Clause. The federal law's language and legislative history demonstrate a clear congressional intent to grant local governments discretion and flexibility in spending these funds, and the state statute obstructs that purpose. The phrase 'may use the payment for any governmental purpose' confers discretion that the state's mandatory formula eliminates, rendering the federal provision almost meaningless. The legislative history reveals Congress's intent to bypass states and prevent the earmarking of funds for specific purposes, allowing localities to address varied needs like law enforcement and road maintenance that arise from the presence of federal lands. Furthermore, other provisions of the federal statutory scheme explicitly provide for proportional allocation to school districts in different circumstances, indicating by omission that such a requirement does not apply here. The state law transforms the county from a manager of the funds into 'merely the State’s cashier,' which directly contravenes the objectives of Congress.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No, the state law does not conflict with the federal Act and is not invalid. Counties are political subdivisions of the state, subject to the state's absolute discretion in the regulation of their powers. The federal statute's provision that a unit 'may use the payment for any governmental purpose' should be interpreted to mean any purpose that is lawful under the state laws that govern the county's activities. The South Dakota statute simply defines, in a neutral manner, how such payments are to be used for governmental purposes within the county, which is a valid exercise of state authority over its subdivision. The majority's reliance on legislative history is misplaced, as the cited materials do not directly prohibit a state from regulating its own counties. The state law does not divert the funds from the county but merely mandates an allocation within it, which does not violate the federal Act.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the doctrine of 'obstacle preemption' within the context of federal spending programs, clarifying that conditions attached to federal funds can limit a state's traditional power over its political subdivisions. The case emphasizes the importance of legislative history in discerning congressional intent, particularly regarding the degree of discretion granted to fund recipients. It sets a precedent that state governments cannot impose additional, conflicting restrictions on how local governments spend federal grants when Congress clearly intended to provide flexibility. This ruling ensures that the purposes of federal grant-in-aid programs are not undermined by state-level mandates, even if those mandates direct funds toward legitimate governmental functions.
