Coercion by the Numbers: Conditional Spending Doctrine and the Future of Federal Education Spending

In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court for the first time deemed a federal spending program unconstitutionally coercive.This decision transformed the coercion principle from a mere rhetorical device into a legitimate restraint on federal conditional spending.Specifically, the coercion principle addresses the risk that Congress will use its spending power to subvert state regulation in areas in which states have a reserved right to regulate.As this principle has developed over recent decades, federal spending for elementary and secondary education has steadily increased.This Note applies the Court's reasoning from NFIB to No Child Left Behind, which remains the primary piece of federal education legislation, and concludes that a strong case exists for finding federal education spending unconstitutionally coercive.Such a case resonates with the rationales underlying the coercion principle.Long-term trends in education spending are then considered to show that coercion will likely become a genuine issue in the near future, even as Congress enacts new education legislation.Finally, this Note discusses federal involvement in education and makes two legislative recommendations for absolving coercion issues. Case Western Reserve Law Review• Volume 64 • Issue 2•2013Coercion by the Numbers