You are on page 1of 2

Treaties and the Constitution

How does treaty law inter-relate with other domestic laws? What is supreme (the
hierarchy)?

Case: Missouri v. Holland (1920; US)

Facts: This case is regarding the ability to enforce a treaty - the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918 - which protects certain species of endangered
birds. The State of Missouri brought the suit to prevent its enforcement b/c it
would be in violation of the 10th Amendment which says, "The powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Issue: Whether the treaty violates the U.S. constitution. No.

Holding: Treaty upheld.

Reasoning: A treaty cannot violate the US constitution. Court says the treaty
does not violate anything in the Constitution, but maybe it is forbidden by the
10th amendment. State of Missouri claims that it is in the power of individual
states to regulate the killing and sale of such birds, b/c they were in the
state's possession. But a bird is only temporarily in any one state, not
permanently there, so where not in possession of anyone as the State claimed.
Court says isn't enough to just look at the 10th amendment, b/c the supremacy
clause (Article VI) gives power to treaties to supersede state laws. There is a
national interest here in the protection of these birds, and it is not sufficient
to rely on the states, so the treaty is binding.

Notes

• Missouri says there is a conflict btwn the treaty and 10th amendment.
○ b/c Missouri owns the birds - so they have the right to regulate
○ Previously, Supreme Court said that state has exclusive domain over the
birds
§ What's changed now is that there is a treaty
§ The treaty trumps
• Why does the treaty trump?
○ The birds are transitory
○ Which branch of federal gov't has the power?
§ Executive branch - and they have authority under the Constitution
□ They have the authority to execute treaties under Art 2,
section 2.
□ Since treaty is supreme, congress can implement the treaty
• Highly influential case
○ Critique - if fed wants to trump state law, all they have to do is create
a treaty with another nation regarding that issue. But this is not that easy….

• Doesn’t say that executive party has unlimited power to enter into treaties, it
says that when it does have power to enact treaties, then I trumps state law.
• *** Court says treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the constitution
○ In terms of supremacy, the constitution is higher if inconsistent with the
treaty
○ There are limits to the treaty-making process
• ***Constitution doesn’t say that it constitution trumps treaties!!! So according
to rule of last in time, then the treaty would trump
○ You can imply that constitution is highest law in the land
○ Intent of the framers of the constitution that it be the highest law in
the land, b/c it's so hard to change it. They woudn't have intended that a treaty
could change it so easily.

You might also like