Jump to content

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commission of Montana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Magioladitis (talk | contribs) at 09:15, 24 August 2016 (Further reading: clean up using AWB (12082)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commission of Montana
Argued October 5, 1977
Decided May 23, 1978
Full case nameLester Baldwin, et al. v. Fish & Game Commission of Montana, et al.
Citations436 U.S. 371 (more)
Holding
Recreational hunting is not a fundamental right and therefore is not within the purview of privileges and immunities clause. The Montana statutory does not violate the equal protection clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityBlackmun, joined by Burger, Stewart, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens
DissentBrennan, joined by White, Marshall

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commission of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case that affirmed the right of the state of Montana to charge higher fees for out-of-state elk hunters.[1]

Background

In the state of Montana, the fee for an elk-hunting licenses for nonresidents of the state were substantially higher than the fee for residents of the state in the 1970s.[2]

Decision of the Court

In a 6-3 decision in favor of the state of Montana, Justice Blackmun wrote the opinion for the majority. The court found that the licensing system bore some rational relationship to legitimate state purposes. The court concluded that the nonresidents' interest in sharing the limited resource on more equal terms with residents simply did not fall within the purview of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Equality in access to state elk was not basic to the maintenance or well-being of the union, and whatever rights or activities were fundamental under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, elk hunting by nonresidents was not one of them. The legislative choice was an economic means not unreasonably related to the preservation of a finite resource and a substantial regulatory interest of the state because it served to limit the number of hunter days.

See also

References

  1. ^ Baldin v. Fish & Game Commission of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978) (justia.com)
  2. ^ "Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana - 436 U.S. 371 (1978)". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 18 November 2013.

Further reading

  • Text of Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978) is available from: Findlaw Justia