Missouri v. Holland

252 U.S. 416, 40 S. Ct. 382 (1920)

 

RULE:

By U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, the power to make treaties is delegated expressly, and by U.S. Const. art. VI treaties made under the authority of the United States, along with the Constitution and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, are declared the supreme law of the land. If the treaty is valid there can be no dispute about the validity of the statute implementing the treaty under U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, as a necessary and proper means to execute the powers of the government.

FACTS:

The State brought a bill in equity challenging the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, and the regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture in pursuance of the same, claiming that the treaty was an unconstitutional interference with the State's sovereign rights under the Tenth Amendment. This included absolute control of wild game and birds within the State's borders. The State also alleged a pecuniary interest, as owner of the wild birds within its borders. The district court dismissed the action on the ground that the act of Congress was constitutional. The case was appealed.

ISSUE:

Is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act valid?

ANSWER:

Yes

CONCLUSION:

The Court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the power to make the treaty had been expressly delegated to the United States under U.S. Const. art. II, § 2 and art. VI. The Court noted that the treaty did not contravene any prohibitory words found in the federal constitution, nor was the subject matter, the regulation of migratory birds, forbidden by the general terms of the Tenth Amendment. Rejecting the State's claim upon title, the Court stated that the wild birds were not in the possession of anyone.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.