To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Lester Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary. A Montana state law required higher fees for hunting for out-of-staters and the Plaintiffs, Lester Baldwin and other recreational hunters (Plaintiffs) challenged the law. The Plaintiffs argued that the law violated their rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution (Constitution).

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A state law, which imposes higher fees for out-of-staters on recreational hunting, is constitutional because it is not a “fundamental right” entitled to protection by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

Protection of the wild life of the State is peculiarly within the police power, and the State has great latitude in determining what means are appropriate for its protection.

View Full Point of Law
Facts. The Plaintiffs sued because Montana imposed higher hunting fees on out-of-state hunters than resident hunters. The licensing scheme, which applied to elk-hunting, was at least 7

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following