Missouri v. Holland
In 1920, the state of Missouri and two of its citizens named Holland and Dulaney filed a lawsuit against the United States government. They claimed that a treaty between the US and the United Kingdom violated the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution, which limits the federal government's power and ensures that states have certain rights. The treaty in question was about protecting migratory birds, and it gave the federal government the power to regulate hunting and fishing to keep those birds safe.
The state of Missouri and its citizens argued that this treaty was outside the scope of the federal government's power and that the state should be able to make its own rules about hunting and fishing. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in 1920, the Court ruled in favor of the federal government.
The Court held that the migratory bird treaty was a valid exercise of the federal government's power under the Constitution's Treaty Clause. This clause gives the federal government the authority to enter into treaties with other nations, and those treaties have the same force as federal law. The Court ruled that the treaty did not violate the Tenth Amendment because it was a valid exercise of federal power.
In short, the Supreme Court held that the federal government has the power to enter into treaties that may impact state powers, and those treaties are binding federal law. This ruling has had significant implications for the relationship between federal and state power, and it continues to be an important precedent today.
The state of Missouri and its citizens argued that this treaty was outside the scope of the federal government's power and that the state should be able to make its own rules about hunting and fishing. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in 1920, the Court ruled in favor of the federal government.
The Court held that the migratory bird treaty was a valid exercise of the federal government's power under the Constitution's Treaty Clause. This clause gives the federal government the authority to enter into treaties with other nations, and those treaties have the same force as federal law. The Court ruled that the treaty did not violate the Tenth Amendment because it was a valid exercise of federal power.
In short, the Supreme Court held that the federal government has the power to enter into treaties that may impact state powers, and those treaties are binding federal law. This ruling has had significant implications for the relationship between federal and state power, and it continues to be an important precedent today.