Reno v. Condon

Citation: Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000).

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a short opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, unanimously reversed decisions of the federal Distict Court of South Carolina and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that had sustained a state statute which conflicted with the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (“DPPA”). These courts had ruled the DPPA unconstitutional under the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments.

The DPPA Act regulates disclosure and resale of personal information in state motor vehicle records; these “may include a person's name, address, telephone number, vehicle description, Social Security Number, medical information, and photograph…. Congress found that many States, in turn, sell this personal information to individuals and businesses…. These sales generate significant revenues for the States … (the Wisconsin Department of Transportation receives approximately $8 million each year from the sale of motor vehicle information.).”

The Act requires that the driver consent before the state discloses most of this information, but permits disclosure of the 5-digit zip code and “information on vehicular accidents, driving violations and driver's status.” The opinion also notes a number of exceptions, including information required to control emissions, driver safety, thefts, recalls, verifying personal information submitted to a business, and insurance. The private parties that receive this information are also authorized to disclose it to others for the same purposes. And “a private actor who has obtained drivers' information from DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles] records specifically for direct-marketing purposes may resell that information for other direct-marketing uses, but not otherwise.”

Violation of the DPPA exposes both states and individuals that do not comply with its requirements to sanctions. One of these provides that “a state agency that maintains a ‘policy or practice of substantial noncompliance’ with the Act may be subject to a civil penalty imposed by the United States Attorney General of not more than $5,000 per day of substantial noncompliance.”

The South Carolina statute held unconstitutional permitted any person or entity that completes a form listing the requester's name and address, and stating that the information will not be used for telephone solicitation, to get all the DMV's records. A driver can get a copy of the request, and may prohibit use of DMV records for certain commercial activities.

Applying the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the Supreme Court noted that when DMV information is disclosed for commercial purposes, it is used in interstate commerce “to contact drivers with customized solicitations … [and] by various public and private entities for matters related to interstate motoring. Because drivers' information is, in this context, an article of commerce, its sale or release into the interstate stream of business is sufficient to support congressional regulation.”

Turning to the Tenth Amendment, the Court shot down South Carolina's argument that the DPPA required the state in its sovereign capacity to regulate its own citizens. Said the Court, “The DPPS regulates the States as owners of databases. It does not require the South Carolina Legislature to enact any laws or regulations, and it does not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals.”

Finally, in answer to South Carolina's argument that DPPA was unconstitutional because “it regulates the States exclusively,” the Court replied that the law was generally applicable and “regulates the universe of entities that participate as suppliers to the market for motor vehicle information &mdash; the States as initial suppliers of the information in interstate commerce and private resellers or redisclosers of that information in commerce.”