Reno v. Condon

Reno v. Condon
Reno v. Condon
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 10, 1999; Decided January 12, 2000
Full case name	Reno v. Condon
Citations	528 U.S. 141 (more) 120 S. Ct. 666; 145 L. Ed. 2d 587; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 503
Case history
Prior	Summary judgment granted, 972 F. Supp. 977 (D.S.C. 1997); affirmed, 155 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 1998); cert. granted, 526 U.S. 1111 (1999).
Holding
	The DPPA did not run afoul of the federalism principles enunciated in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, and was a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.
Court membership
	Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor; Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy; David Souter · Clarence Thomas; Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
Majority	Rehnquist, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
	U.S. Const. amend. X

Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) against a Tenth Amendment challenge.^[1]

Reno v. Condon
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 10, 1999 Decided January 12, 2000
Full case name	Reno v. Condon
Citations	528 U.S. 141 (more) 120 S. Ct. 666; 145 L. Ed. 2d 587; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 503
Case history
Prior	Summary judgment granted, 972 F. Supp. 977 (D.S.C. 1997); affirmed, 155 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 1998); cert. granted, 526 U.S. 1111 (1999).
Holding
The DPPA did not run afoul of the federalism principles enunciated in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, and was a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
Majority	Rehnquist, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. X