| Missouri v. Holland | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 2, 1920 Decided April 19, 1920 | |
| Full case name | State of Missouri v. Holland, United States Game Warden |
| Citations | 252 U.S. 416 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | United States v. Samples, 258 F. 479 (W.D. Mo. 1919) |
| Holding | |
| Protection of a State's quasi-sovereign right to regulate the taking of game is an insufficient jurisdictional basis, apart from any pecuniary interest, for a bill by a State to enjoin enforcement of federal regulations over the subject alleged to be unconstitutional. Treaties made by the federal government are supreme over any state concerns about such treaties having abrogated any states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 is constitutional. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Holmes, joined by White, McKenna, Day, McReynolds, Brandeis, Clarke |
| Dissent | Van Devanter, Pitney |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. X | |
Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which international legal obligations are incorporated into federal law under the United States Constitution.[1]
The case centered on the constitutionality of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which prohibited the killing, capturing, and selling of certain migratory birds pursuant to a treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. The state of Missouri challenged the enforcement of the Act within its jurisdiction, arguing that the regulation of game was not expressly delegated to the federal government by the United States Constitution and therefore was reserved for the states under the Tenth Amendment; accordingly, the United States government had no constitutional right to enter into a treaty concerning game regulation.[2]
In a 7–2 decision, the Court upheld the Act as constitutional, since it was enacted pursuant to the federal government's express power to make treaties and to enact laws pursuant to treaties, which the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution elevates above state law. The Court also reasoned that protecting wildlife was in the national interest and could only be accomplished through federal action.[1]
Missouri is also notable for Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's articulation of the legal theory of a "living constitution", which purports that the Constitution changes over time and adapts to new circumstances without formal amendments.[3]
- ^ a b Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).
- ^ Resnik, Judith (Fall 2008). "Internationalism of American Federalism: Missouri and Holland, The". Missouri Law Review. 73, Iss. 4, Art. 10: 1118.
- ^ "The Living Constitution | University of Chicago Law School". www.law.uchicago.edu. Retrieved December 19, 2018.