Missouri v. Holland

Facts

On 1916, a treaty between the United States and Great Britain was entered into by the President. It recited that many species of birds in their annual migrations traversed certain parts of the United States and of Canada, that they were of great value as a source of food and in destroying insects injurious to vegetation, but were in danger of extermination through lack of adequate protection. The treaty thus provided for specified close seasons and protection in other forms, and agreed that the two powers would take or propose their law-making bodies the necessary measures for carrying the treaty out. The Act sought to prohibit the killing, capturing, or selling any of the migratory birds included in the terms of the treaty except as permitted by regulations compatible with those terms. The State of Missouri brought a suit to prevent a game warden of the United States from attempting to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, and the regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture in pursuance of the same. The ground of the suit is that the statute is an unconstitutional interference with the rights reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment, and that the acts of the defendant done and threatened under that authority invade the sovereign right of the State and contravene its will manifested its statutes. The State also alleged a pecuniary interest, as owner of the wild birds within its border.