Hunt v. United States
| Citation | 49 S.Ct. 38,278 U.S. 96,73 L.Ed. 200 |
| Decision Date | 19 November 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 44,44 |
| Parties | HUNT, Governor of Arizona, et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Earl Anderson and John W. Murphy, both of Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from page 97 intentionally omitted] The Attorney General, Wm. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., and Robert P. Reeder, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 98 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Kaibab National Forest and the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve, covering practically the same area, are situated north of the Colorado river in Arizona. They were created by proclamations of the President under authority of Congress. During the last few years deer on these reserves have increased in such large numbers that the forage is insufficient for their subsistence. The result has been that these deer have greatly injured the lands in the reserves by overbrowsing upon and killing valuable young trees, shrubs, bushes, and forage plants. Thousands of deer have died because of insufficient forage. Attempts were made under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture to remove some of the deer from the reserves to other lands, but these entirely failed, as did other means. The district forester, acting under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, proceeded to kill large numbers of the deer and ship the carcasses outside the limits of the reserves. That this was necessary to protect the lands of the United States within the reserves from serious injury is made clear by the evidence. The direction given by the Secretary of Agriculture was within the authority conferred upon him by act of Congress. And the power of the United States to thus protect its lands and property does not admit of doubt, Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, 525, 526, 17 S. Ct. 864, 42 L. Ed. 260; Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 404, 37 S. Ct. 387, 61 L. Ed. 791; McKelvey v. United States, 260 U. S. 353, 359, 43 S. Ct. 132, 67 L. Ed. 301; United States v. Alford, 274 U. S. 264, 47 S. Ct. 597, 71 L. Ed. 1040, the game laws or any other statute of the state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Appellants interfered with these acts of the United States officials and threatened to arrest and prosecute any person or persons attempting to kill or possess or transport such deer, under the claim that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Sharpnack
...321 U.S. 383, 64 S.Ct. 622, 88 L.Ed. 814; Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94, 60 S.Ct. 431, 84 L.Ed. 596; Hunt v. United States, 278 U.S. 96, 49 S.Ct. 38, 73 L.Ed. 200; Air Terminal Services, Inc., v. Rentzel, D.C., 81 F.Supp. 611; Oklahoma City v. Sanders, 10 Cir., 94 F.2d 323, 115 A.......
-
Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Commission of Pennsylvania
...173 U.S. 276, 19 S.Ct. 453, 43 L.Ed. 699; Johnson v. State of Maryland, 254 U.S. 51, 41 S.Ct. 16, 65 L.Ed. 126; Hunt v. United States, 278 U.S. 96, 48 S.Ct. 38, 73 L.Ed. 200; State of Arizona v. State of California, 283 U.S. 423, 51 S.Ct. 522, 75 L.Ed. 1154. But those who contract to furnis......
-
United States v. State of Mich.
...426 (1969); Lacoste v. Department of Conservation, 263 U.S. 545, 549, 44 S.Ct. 186, 68 L.Ed. 437 (1923); Hunt v. United States, 278 U.S. 96, 100, 49 S.Ct. 38, 73 L.Ed. 200 (1928). ...
-
Kleppe v. New Mexico
...of cases that, upon analysis, provide no support for their position. Like the District Court, appellees cite Hunt v. United States, 278 U.S. 96, 49 S.Ct. 38, 73 L.Ed. 200 (1928), for the proposition that the Property Clause gives Congress only the limited power to regulate wild animals in o......
-
The pioneer spirit and the public trust: the American rule of capture and state ownership of wildlife.
...F.2d 623 (7th Cir. 1937); Cerritos Gun Club v. Hall, 96 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1938). (188) Holland, 252 U.S. at 434 (emphasis added). (189) 278 U.S. 96 (190) 426 U.S. 529 (1976). (191) "The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Te......
-
RESPONSE TO KISONAK'S "FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS: THE AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES".
...at 866. (84) Id. at 871. (85) Id. at 872 (citing Cal. Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 580 (1987); Hunt v. United States, 278 U.S. 96, 100 (86) In concurrence, Justice Eid emphasized that the court had no need to reach the merits regarding federal and state authority over w......
-
Conflicts between livestock and wildlife: an analysis of legal liabilities arising from reindeer and caribou competition on the Seward Peninsula of western Alaska.
...had authority under the Treaty Clause to regulate migratory birds). (196) U.S. CONST. art VI, cl. 2; see also Hunt v. United States, 278 U.S. 96, 100 (1928) (holding that United State's decision to kill deer in Grand Canyon preempted state hunting (197) See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell,......
-
FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS: THE AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES.
...and Commerce Clauses); Nie et al., supra note 1, at 831-32, 902 n.811 (discussing Palila u. Haw. Dept. of Land and Nat. Res.). (114) 278 U.S. 96 (1928). (115) 426 U.S. 529 (1976). (116) See Hunt, 278 U.S. at 99-100 (holding that United States officials had authority to kill deer located on ......