Missouri v. Holland

Media Items
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
609
Petitioner: 
Missouri
Respondent: 
Holland
Decided By: 
White Court (1916-1921)
Opinion: 
252 U.S. 416 (1920)
Categories: 
tenth amendment, jurisdiction, states, presidency, international relations
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Missouri v. Holland , 252 U.S. 416 (1920)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1919/1919_609)
Facts of the Case: 

In December 1916, the United States and Great Britain entered into a treaty to protect a number of migratory birds in the U.S. and Canada. Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918 in order to facilitate enforcement of the treaty. When Ray P. Holland, the U.S. Game Warden, threatened to arrest citizens of Missouri for violating the Act, the state of Missouri challenged the treaty.

Question: 

Did the treaty infringe upon rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment?

Conclusion: 

No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the national interest in protecting the wildlife could be protected only by national action. The Court noted that the birds the government sought to protect had no permanent habitats within individual states and argued that "[b]ut for the treaty and the statute there soon might be no birds for any powers to deal with." The Court thus upheld the exercise of the treaty power and thus found no violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Decisions

Decision: 7 votes for Holland, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918; US Const. Amend 10

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
White
Voted with the majority
McKenna
Wrote the majority opinion
Holmes
Voted with the majority
Day
Voted with the minority
Van Devanter
Voted with the minority
Pitney
Voted with the majority
McReynolds
Voted with the majority
Brandeis
Voted with the majority
Clarke

Full Opinion by Justice Oliver W. Holmes, Jr.

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court