Missouri v. Holland
The Court upheld the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, ruling that a treaty with Great Britain protecting migratory birds — and the federal law carrying it out — did not violate Missouri's rights under the Tenth Amendment, even though an earlier attempt to regulate the same birds by ordinary statute alone had been thrown out by lower courts.
The decision established that the treaty-making power can reach subjects that an act of Congress acting alone might not be able to touch, because national problems that individual states cannot solve on their own may require the kind of coordinated action only a treaty allows.
“Wild birds are not in the possession of anyone; and possession is the beginning of ownership.”
The Court explains why Missouri's claim of ownership over migratory birds cannot defeat federal treaty power.
How it got here: A federal district court dismissed Missouri's suit, ruling the Act constitutional, and Missouri appealed that dismissal directly to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Missouri sued a U.S. game warden to stop him from enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which implemented a treaty with Great Britain protecting birds that migrate between the United States and Canada. Missouri argued it owned the wild birds within its borders and that the federal law and regulations invaded rights the Tenth Amendment reserved to the states.
The question before the Court
Could the federal government use a treaty with Great Britain, and a law passed to carry it out, to regulate the hunting of migratory birds inside a state, even though an earlier stand-alone federal law doing the same thing had been struck down?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court ruled that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, adopted to carry out a treaty with Great Britain, was constitutional, even though earlier lower-court decisions had struck down a similar stand-alone federal statute that tried to regulate migratory birds without a treaty behind it. The Court explained that the treaty power is distinct from Congress's ordinary lawmaking power: treaties are separately declared supreme law under the Constitution, and some matters of pressing national concern that require coordinated action with another country may be addressed through a treaty even if an ordinary statute alone could not reach them.
The Court also rejected Missouri's argument that it owned the migratory birds within its borders as a sovereign matter, noting that wild birds are never truly in anyone's possession and pass through many states and countries. Because the birds were only temporarily present in any state and could be protected only through national and international cooperation, the treaty and the statute implementing it did not intrude on any power the Tenth Amendment reserved to the states.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
The ruling meant hunters, landowners, and states could not rely on state ownership claims over wildlife to block federal wildlife protections adopted through treaties. More broadly, it gave the federal government a tool — treaty-making combined with implementing legislation — to address national and international problems, like conservation, that individual states could not effectively manage alone.
What changes now
The decision is a final resolution on the merits, affirming the dismissal of Missouri's suit, so the game warden could continue enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and its regulations. The ruling did not send the case back for further proceedings; it settled, at least for this dispute, that the treaty and its implementing statute were constitutional, leaving future disputes about the reach of the treaty power to be worked out in later cases.
What this does not decide
The Court did not hold that treaties face no constitutional limits at all, or that every treaty automatically overrides state authority. It decided only that this particular treaty and the statute implementing it did not violate the Tenth Amendment, leaving open how far the treaty power extends in other contexts.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Van Devanter
Justices Van Devanter and Pitney dissented from the Court's ruling but did not file a written opinion explaining their reasoning, so the specific grounds for their disagreement with upholding the treaty and statute are not stated in the record.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court framed the real question as whether a treaty, not just an ordinary statute, is subject to the same Tenth Amendment limits, noting that the Constitution expressly gives the President and Senate power to make treaties and separately declares treaties, not just federal statutes, the supreme law of the land.
- The Court rejected the argument that a treaty can never do what an unaided act of Congress could not do, declining to treat lower-court rulings that struck down a stand-alone federal bird-protection statute as a test for what treaties may accomplish.
- The Court reasoned that some problems of great national importance — those requiring coordinated action with another country — can only be addressed through the treaty power, even if an ordinary statute alone might not reach them, because some such power must reside somewhere in a functioning national government.
- The Court examined Missouri's claim that it owned the wild migratory birds within its borders and found this an unstable foundation, since wild birds are never actually in anyone's possession and move freely between states and countries.
- Because the birds were only temporarily within any one state's territory and could be effectively protected only through coordinated national and international action, the Court concluded the treaty and the statute carrying it out did not intrude on any power reserved to the states.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Geer v. Connecticut (161 U. S. 519)
The Court said this earlier ruling on state ownership of wildlife could not be used as a test for what treaties may do.