CONGRESS used the threat of withdrawal of highway funds to get all 50 states to lower the speed limit to 55.
From my quote of the amicus brief: Defendants have thus violated the APA by promulgating a policy based on factors WHICH CONGRESSS DID NOT INTEND IT TO CONSIDER
( the all-caps is for emphasis because I can't see italics well anymore and HN doesn't have bold; I'm not yelling :) )
For something like this, it really matters which part of the federal government takes the action.
The important part is maintaining separation of powers... making sure the Executive branch doesn't overstep its authority into the legislative branch territory.
Not quite. What it did was offer highway funds in exchange for the 55 speed limit. The difference is threatening to withdraw pre exisiting funds in exchange for the state doing something is illegal but introducing new funds is legal.
Please cite what you're referencing next time - it was not clear from your comment on a current event if this is something that also happened recently, or in the last century.
I'm not sure about that, I've seen many states with 65mph and 75mph highway speed limits ... but you might be thinking about the drinking age, which was raised to 21 years in all states by withdrawing highway funds if they did not pass such laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...
