State of Missouri v. Holland - Bird Protection And Treaty-making, The Ownership Of Nature, The Migratory Bird Treaty, Further Readings
Frank W. McAllister, Attorney General of Missouri
Ray P. Holland
That federal laws pursuant to the Migratory Bird Act and enforcement thereof were an invasion of sovereign states rights as set forth in the Tenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
Alexander C. King, Solicitor General; William L. Frierson, Assistant Attorney General
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
John T. Gose, J. Harvey
Justices for the Court
Louis D. Brandeis, John Hessin Clarke, William Rufus Day, Oliver Wendell Holmes (writing for the Court), Joseph McKenna, James Clark McReynolds, Edward Douglass White
Mahlon Pitney, Willis Van Devanter
Date of Decision
19 April 1920
The Court ruled in favor of Holland, upholding the U.S. government's treaty and its relevant statutes.
By affirming Congress' right to make treaties whose terms might supercede state laws, the Court established one of the first wildlife protection laws.
- Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678 (1887).
- Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission, 430 U.S. 371 (1978).
Eblen, Ruth A. and William R. Eblen, eds. The Encyclopedia of the Environment Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1994.
- Stromberg v. California - Significance, Court Overturns Conviction Under "red Flag Law", Anarchistic Legislation: Red Flag Laws
- State of Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada - Significance, Supreme Court Redefines "separate But Equal"
- State of Missouri v. Holland - Further Readings
- State of Missouri v. Holland - Bird Protection And Treaty-making
- State of Missouri v. Holland - The Ownership Of Nature
- State of Missouri v. Holland - The Migratory Bird Treaty
- Other Free Encyclopedias