BALDWIN v. FISH & GAME COMMISSION OF MONTANA

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
76-1150
Appellee 
Fish & Game Commission of Montana
Appellant 
Baldwin
Advocates
(Argued the cause for the appellants)
(Argued the cause for the appellees)
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

In its licensing system for elk-hunters, the state of Montana required nonresidents to pay a substantially higher fee than residents for a hunting permit.

Question 

Did the Montana law violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution as delineated in Article IV, Section 2?

Conclusion 
Decision: 6 votes for Fish & Game Commission of Montana, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Privileges and Immunities Clause

The Court affirmed the right of Montana to charge higher fees for out-of-state elk hunters. Justice Blackmun found that the Privileges and Immunities Clause only applied to activities which bear "on the vitality of the Nation as a single entity." Since elk hunting is a recreational activity and not fundamental to the survival of nonresidents of Montana, Blackmun argued that it did not fall within the scope of the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. "Equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or well-being of the Union," he concluded.

Cite this Page
BALDWIN v. FISH & GAME COMMISSION OF MONTANA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 December 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1150>.
BALDWIN v. FISH & GAME COMMISSION OF MONTANA, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1150 (last visited December 14, 2014).
"BALDWIN v. FISH & GAME COMMISSION OF MONTANA," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed December 14, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1150.