Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana

E15223

Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld Montana’s higher elk-hunting license fees for nonresidents and narrowed the scope of the Privileges and Immunities Clause to exclude purely recreational activities.

AI illustration

How this image was made

AI-generated illustration of Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana

This AI-generated illustration was produced by black-forest-labs/FLUX.2-dev (1024x1024) from a prompt written by openai/gpt-oss-120b from the entity's label + description.

Prompt

Generate an image of Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana (Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld Montana’s higher elk-hunting license fees for nonresidents and narrowed the scope of the Privileges and Immunities Clause to exclude purely recreational activities.)

All labels observed (1)

Label Occurrences
Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana canonical 1

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (50)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
court decision ⓘ
areaOfLaw Equal Protection jurisprudence ⓘ
Privileges and Immunities jurisprudence ⓘ
United States constitutional law ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ
citation 436 U.S. 371 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate 1978 ⓘ
dissentingJustices John Paul Stevens ⓘ
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
geographicLocation Montana ⓘ
holding Montana may charge higher elk-hunting license fees to nonresidents than to residents ⓘ
differential elk-hunting license fees for nonresidents do not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ
recreational hunting is not a fundamental right protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ
the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not apply to purely recreational activities ⓘ
impact affirmed broad state authority over wildlife management ⓘ
cited as precedent in later cases involving nonresident hunting and fishing fees ⓘ
narrowed the scope of the Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ
jurisdiction State of Montana ⓘ
linked to: Montana

United States ⓘ
keyPrinciple commercial and livelihood-related activities receive greater Privileges and Immunities protection than recreational activities ⓘ
fundamental rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause are limited to activities bearing upon the vitality of the nation as a single entity ⓘ
states may treat residents and nonresidents differently in access to recreational resources ⓘ
legalIssue Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV ⓘ
discrimination against nonresidents ⓘ
majorityJustices Byron R. White ⓘ
Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ
Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ
Potter Stewart ⓘ
Thurgood Marshall ⓘ
Warren E. Burger ⓘ
William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ
partyType individual hunter ⓘ
state administrative agency ⓘ
petitioner Baldwin ⓘ
relatedCase Hicklin v. Orbeck ⓘ
Toomer v. Witsell ⓘ
relatedDoctrine state ownership and control of wildlife ⓘ
state police power ⓘ
respondent Fish and Game Commission of Montana ⓘ
stateParty Montana ⓘ
subjectMatter elk hunting licenses ⓘ
nonresident hunting fees ⓘ
state wildlife regulation ⓘ
vote 7-2 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Privileges and Immunities Clause → keyCase → Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana ⓘ