{
  "id": "R44797",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44797",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 460015,
      "date": "2017-03-23",
      "retrieved": "2017-03-29T20:03:14.040552",
      "title": "The Federal Government\u2019s Authority to Impose Conditions on Grant Funds",
      "summary": "Commonly known as the Spending Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution has been widely recognized as providing the federal government with the legal authority to offer federal grant funds to states and localities that are contingent on the recipients engaging in, or refraining from, certain activities. However, the Supreme Court has articulated certain limitations on the exercise of this power. In its 1987 decision in South Dakota v. Dole, which arguably remains the leading case regarding the use of the federal government\u2019s conditional spending power, the Court held that legislation enacted pursuant to the Spending Clause must be in pursuit of the \u201cgeneral welfare.\u201d In addition, the Dole Court held that any conditions attached to the receipt of federal funds must: (1) be unambiguously established so that recipients can knowingly accept or reject them; (2) be germane to the federal interest in the particular national projects or programs to which the money is directed; (3) not violate other provisions of the Constitution, such as the First Amendment or the Due Process or Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment; and (4) not cross the line from enticement to impermissible coercion, such that states have no real choice but to accept the funding and enact or administer a federal regulatory program. The fourth of these criteria, in particular, is intended to ensure that any conditions on federal grant funds do not run afoul of the Tenth Amendment\u2019s prohibition on the federal government\u2019s \u201ccommandeering\u201d of state or local governments or officials by requiring them to carry out federal programs. \nThe power of the federal government to attach conditions to federal grants has received renewed attention due to a January 2017 executive order issued by President Trump that is intended to encourage state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement by withholding federal grants to nonfederal entities that have adopted \u201csanctuary\u201d policies. Several jurisdictions that could be affected by the executive order have filed suit against the President and his senior officials challenging the order\u2019s constitutionality and seeking an injunction that would bar its implementation. The plaintiffs argue, among other things, that the executive order: (1) does not comport with the restrictions on the spending power that were articulated by the High Court in Dole, and (2) violates the Tenth Amendment by compelling states and localities to enforce federal immigration law. This litigation regarding the executive order, and other legal challenges that may be filed in the future, could provide an opportunity for the federal courts to elaborate further on the federal government\u2019s power to impose conditions on the use of federal funds.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44797",
          "sha1": "5cead01795eb0163e7ec605513d06853c1129058",
          "filename": "files/20170323_R44797_5cead01795eb0163e7ec605513d06853c1129058.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44797",
          "sha1": "36eb380c05663646f82405ecc6d512de9bf7968a",
          "filename": "files/20170323_R44797_36eb380c05663646f82405ecc6d512de9bf7968a.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}