| Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued October 5, 1977 Decided May 23, 1978 |
||||||
| Full case name | Lester Baldwin, et al. v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana, et al. | |||||
| 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 | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Blackmun, joined by Burger, Stewart, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens | |||||
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by White, Marshall | |||||
Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978), is 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] 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.. Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 436 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1978).
Contents |