In the case of Berry et al. v. Doles et al., 1977, a group of taxpayers from North Carolina challenged the constitutionality of federal highway funding legislation that required states to adopt a minimum drinking age of 21 in order to receive full federal highway funds. The plaintiffs argued that this requirement was an overreach by Congress and violated principles of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. However, both district court and appellate court ruled against them, upholding Congress's power to set conditions on federal spending as part its broad authority under the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8) of Constitution. The Supreme Court declined to review these lower court decisions thereby affirming their rulings indirectly without issuing any opinion or explanation for its decision not take up appeal - a practice known as denying certiorari or "denying cert". This denial left standing lower courts' interpretation that such conditional spending measures were constitutional if they served general welfare purpose related directly with expenditure involved i.e., promoting road safety through reducing drunk driving among young people in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for Berry et al. v. Doles et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a federal law prohibiting political campaign contributions by banks and corporations infringes upon First Amendment rights of free speech and association. The dissenters contended that such restrictions should only be applied if there is clear evidence of corruption or undue influence, which they believed was not demonstrated in this case. They also expressed concern about potential overreach, arguing that the ruling could lead to further limitations on political participation by other types of organizations or entities without sufficient justification.