Carey v. South Dakota
Headline: Court upholds South Dakota ban on shipping wild ducks, allowing states to bar transporting migratory game even when federal law sets hunting seasons.
Holding: The Court affirmed Carey’s conviction and held that South Dakota’s ban on shipping wild ducks is not inconsistent with the 1913 Federal Migratory Bird Act and may be enforced alongside federal hunting-season rules.
- Allows states to ban shipping migratory birds even if federal hunting seasons exist.
- Hunters may lawfully take birds but still face state penalties for transporting them.
- Notes a later 1918 federal law that addresses shipments in interstate commerce.
Summary
Background
A man named Carey shipped wild ducks by express from inside South Dakota to Chicago on November 19, 1915. South Dakota had a 1909 law that forbade shipping wild ducks. Congress passed the Federal Migratory Bird Act in 1913, declaring migratory birds under federal custody and forbidding their being destroyed or taken contrary to federal regulations that set closed hunting seasons.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the 1913 federal law displaced the State’s power to forbid shipment. The Court explained that the federal law and its regulations deal with when birds may be taken or killed by fixing closed seasons. They do not address the shipment or transport of birds. The South Dakota law forbids shipping at all, even when birds were lawfully killed during open season. Because the federal law did not expressly cover shipping and the state rule was not in actual conflict with the federal prohibition on taking contrary to regulations, the state law could stand. The Court applied the usual rule that Congress must clearly intend to override state police powers and chose the interpretation that preserves the state law’s validity.
Real world impact
The ruling lets states keep laws that ban transporting or shipping migratory game birds even if federal rules allow taking them in certain seasons. People may lawfully hunt in season but still face state penalties for transporting birds. The opinion also notes a later 1918 federal law that deals with shipments in interstate commerce, which may affect the issue going forward.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?