In 1916, Great Britain and the United States agreed that certain species of birds were tremendously valuable to the environment but were at risk of becoming extinct. If you are curious why Great Britain and the United States had a vested interest in the same birds given that they are separated by a huge ocean, remember that Canada was part of Great Britain until 1931. Great Britain (advocating for its Canadian colony) and the United States entered into a treaty, a formal contract between two or more nations. The Migratory Bird Treaty of 1916 required Great Britain (and, by extension, Canada) and the United States to create laws that would protect certain migratory birds.

Consistent with its obligations under the treaty, the US Congress passed a series of statutes called the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. We will refer to the congressional statutes as the MBTA. According the MBTA, it was illegal to kill, capture, or sell any birds (or their feathers, eggs, and nests) listed in the treaty. There are a couple of very limited exceptions, but the main force of the statutes is to protect migratory birds from harm caused by people. The MBTA also authorized the creation of a list (that matched the list agreed upon in the treaty) of birds protected by the statutes.

After the law was passed, the state of Missouri filed a lawsuit against the United States alleging that the MBTA was an unconstitutional exercise of federal power. Missouri argued that Missouri - and only Missouri - had the authority to regulate wildlife found within its borders.

The case ofMissouri v Holland was heard before the United States Supreme Court on March 2, 1920. Review the attachment and answer the following questions:

1. Ray P. Holland is the Defendant in this case. In what capacity did Ray P. Holland serve that landed him in this lawsuit.

2. This case was first heard by a federal district court. The federal district court ruled in favor of Ray P. Holland. Because of the type of case and the type of remedy requested, this case bypassed the intermediate court of appeals and was appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court. With this procedural history in mind, which party is the appellant? Which party is the appellee?

3. What remedy is Missouri seeking? Is this a remedy in law or a remedy in equity?

4. In this case, Missouri claimed that the MBTA was an unconstitutional exercise of power and that Missouri had the authority to regulate wildlife found within its borders. Which part of the US Constitution did Missouri reference to justify its power to do so?

5. In this case, the United States claimed the MBTA was a constitutional exercise of power. It did so by referring to two separate clauses of the US Constitution. Which powers (and their respective clauses) did the United States refer to as the sources of its authority to enact the MBTA?