Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commission of Montana
United States Supreme Court
436 U.S. 371 (1978)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
The State of Montana operated a hunting licensing scheme that permitted Montana residents to purchase single-animal hunting licenses for very low fees, but required out-of-state residents to purchase combination licenses for significantly more money, regardless of what animals they wished to hunt in the state. Lester Baldwin (plaintiff) was a Montana resident who operated a hunting-guide business. He and several of his Minnesota clients, all previous hunters in Montana, brought suit against the Fish & Game Commission of Montana (defendant) in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that the Montana statute violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution. A three-judge panel of the district court denied relief to all plaintiffs, and they appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)
Concurrence (Burger, C.J.)
Dissent (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
