Court Opinion

ID: 9427543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:21:07.759483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:07.880816
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
with whom The Chief Justice joins, dissenting.
This Court’s seeming preoccupation in recent years with laws relating to wildlife must, I suspect, appear curious to casual observers of this institution.1 It is no more curious, however, than this Court’s recent pronouncements on the validity of Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519 (1896). For less than one year ago we unreservedly reaffirmed the principles announced in Geer. Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm’n, 436 U. S. 371, 386 (1978). Today, the Court overrules that decision. Because I disagree with the Court’s overruling of Geer and holding that Oklahoma’s law relating to the sale of minnows violates the Commerce Clause, I dissent.
In its headlong rush to overrule Geer, the Court characterizes that decision as “rest[ing] on the holding that no interstate commerce was involved.” Ante, at 327. It is true that one of the rationales relied on by the Geer Court was that the State could exercise its power to control the killing and ownership of animals ferae naturae to prohibit such game *340from leaving the borders of the State and thus prevent the game from ever becoming the objects of interstate commerce. 161 U. S., at 530-532. Since the Court in Geer was of the view that the challenged statute effectively prevented certain game from entering the stream of interstate commerce, there could be no basis for a Commerce Clause challenge to the State’s law. Id., at 530, 532.2 I do not dispute the Court’s rejection of this theory; as the Court points out, this rationale was rejected long before today. Ante, at 329; see West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229 (1911). My objection is that this line of reasoning, while undoubtedly considered important by the majority in Geer, is unnecessary to sustain that decision 3 and is unneeded in the disposition of the pres*341ent case. And no one — not the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals or the State in this Court — contends that the minnows at issue are not the subjects of interstate commerce. It is obvious that the Court has simply set this theory up as a sort of strawman to facilitate the toppling of a decision which, in other respects, enunciates principles that have remained valid and vital, albeit somewhat refined, at least until today.4
The Court in Geer expressed the view derived from Roman law that the wild fish and game located within the territorial limits of a State are the common property of its citizens and that the State, as a kind of trustee, may exercise this common “ownership" for the benefit of its citizens. 161 U. S., at 529. Admittedly, a State does not “own” the wild creatures within its borders in any conventional sense of the word.5 Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm’n, supra, at 386; Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U. S. 265, 284 (1977); Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385, 401-402 (1948); Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 434 (1920). But the concept expressed by the “ownership” doctrine is not obsolete. Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm’n, supra, at 392 (Burger, C. J., concurring). This Court long has recognized that the ownership *342language of Geer and similar cases is simply a shorthand way of describing a State’s substantial interest in preserving and regulating the exploitation of the fish and game and other natural resources within its boundaries for the benefit of its citizens. 436 U. S., at 386; Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., supra, at 284; Toomer v. Witsell, supra, at 402.
In recognition of this important state interest, the Court has upheld a variety of regulations designed to conserve and maintain the natural resources of a State. See, e. g., Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm’n, supra; Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U. S. 440 (1960); Lacoste v. Louisiana Dept. of Conservation, 263 U. S. 545 (1924); Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138 (1914); Geer v. Connecticut, supra; Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240 (1891); McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391 (1877); Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71 (1855). To be sure, a State’s power to preserve and regulate wildlife within its borders is not absolute.6 But the State is accorded wide latitude in fashioning regulations appropriate for protection of its wildlife. Unless the regulation directly conflicts with a federal statute or treaty, Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., supra, at 283-285; Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U. S. 529, 546 (1976); Missouri v. Holland, supra, at 434; allocates access in a manner that violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm’n, 334 U. S. 410 (1948); or represents a naked attempt to discriminate against out-of-state enterprises in favor of in-state businesses unrelated to any purpose of conservation, Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 1, 13 (1928), the State’s special interest in preserving its wild*343life should prevail. And this is true no matter how “Bal-kanized” the resulting pattern of commercial activity.7
The Oklahoma law at issue in this case serves the special interest of the State, as representative of its citizens, in preserving and regulating exploitation of free-swimming minnows found within its waters. “[T]he law serve [s] to protect against the depletion of minnows in Oklahoma’s natural streams through commercial exportation.” 572 P. 2d 573, 575 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977). Oklahoma’s statutory scheme may not be the most artfully designed to accomplish its pur*344pose.8 But the range of regulations that a State may adopt under these circumstances is extremely broad, particularly where, as here, the burden on interstate commerce is, at most, minimal. See Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U. S., at 288 (Rehnquist, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Lacoste v. Louisiana Dept. of Conservation, supra, at 552; cf. Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm’n, 436. U. S., at 391; Kleppe v. New Mexico, supra, at 545.
Contrary to the view of the Court, I do not think that Oklahoma’s regulation of the commercial exploitation of natural minnows either discriminates against out-of-state enterprises in favor of local businesses or that it burdens the interstate commerce in minnows. At least, no such showing has been made on the record before us. Cf. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 154 (1963). This is not a case where a State’s regulation permits residents to export naturally seined minnows but prohibits nonresidents from so doing. No person is allowed to export natural minnows for sale outside of Oklahoma; the statute is evenhanded in its application. See Okla. Stat., Tit. 29, § 4r-115 (B) (Supp. 1978). The State has not used its power to protect its own citizens from outside competition. See Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333 (1977); H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525 (1949). Nor is this a *345case where a State requires a nonresident business, as a condition to exporting minnows, to move a significant portion of its operations to the State or to use certain state resources in pursuit of its business for the benefit of the local economy. See Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385 (1948); Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 1 (1928); Johnson v. Haydel, 278 U. S. 16 (1928); cf. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137, 145 (1970). And, notwithstanding the Court’s protestations to the contrary, Oklahoma has not blocked the flow of interstate commerce in minnows at the State’s borders. See ante, at 336-337. Appellant, or anyone else, may freely export as many minnows as he wishes, so long as the minnows so transported are hatchery minnows and not naturally seined minnows. On this record, I simply fail to see how interstate commerce in minnows, the commodity at issue here, is impeded in the least by Oklahoma’s regulatory scheme.9
Oklahoma does regulate the manner in which both residents and nonresidents procure minnows to be sold outside the State. But there is no showing in this record that requiring appellant to purchase his minnows from hatcheries instead of from persons licensed to seine minnows from the State’s waters in any way increases appellant’s costs of doing business. There also is nothing in the record to indicate that naturally seined minnows are any more desirable as items of commerce than hatchery minnows. So far as the record before us indicates, hatchery minnows and naturally seined minnows are fungible. Accordingly, any minimal burden that may result from requiring appellant to purchase minnows destined for sale out of state from hatcheries instead of from *346those licensed to seine minnows is, in my view, more than outweighed by Oklahoma’s substantial interest in conserving and regulating exploitation of its natural minnow population. I therefore would affirm the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.

 See, e. g., TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153 (1978) (snail darters); Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm’n, 436 U. S. 371 (1978) (elk); Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U. S. 265 (1977) (menhaden); Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U. S. 529 (1976) (wild horses and burros).

 “The fact that internal commerce may be distinct from interstate commerce, destroys the whole theory upon which the argument of the plaintiff in error proceeds. The power of the State to control the killing of and ownership in game being admitted, the commerce in game, which the state law permitted, was necessarily only internal commerce, since the restriction that it should not become the subject of external commerce went along with the grant and was a part of it.” Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S., at 532.

 The Court in Geer assigned an alternative basis for its decision. The Court held that a State, in the exercise of its police power, could act to preserve for its people a valuable food supply, even though interstate commerce was remotely and indirectly affected.
“Aside from the authority of the State, derived from the common ownership of game and the trust for the benefit of its people which the State exercises in relation thereto, there is another view of the power of the State in regard to the property in game, which is equally conclusive. The right to preserve game flows from the undoubted existence in the State of a police power to that end, which may be none the less efficiently called into play, because by doing so interstate commerce may be remotely and indirectly affected. Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485; Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99, 103; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1. Indeed, the source of the police power as to game birds (like those covered by the statute here called into question) flows from the duty of the State to preserve for its people a valuable food supply.” Id., at 534. See also New York ex rel. Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U. S. 31, 41-42 (1908); *341Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 563, 601 (1923) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

 Certain of the statements in the Court’s opinion provide a basis for some hope that these principles may yet survive the overruling of Geer. See ante, at 337: “We consider the States’ interests in conservation and protection of wild animals as legitimate local purposes”; ante, at 338: “The overruling of Geer does not leave the States powerless to protect and conserve wild animal life within their borders.”

 The Geer Court itself did not use the term “ownership” in any proprietary sense. See 161 U. S., at 529: “ 'We take it to be the correct doctrine in this country, that the ownership of wild animals, so far as they are capable of ownership, is in the State, not as a proprietor but in its sovereign capacity as the representative and for the benefit of all its people in common.’ ”

 Geer recognized limits to the exercise of the State’s power to preserve wildlife within its boundaries. See id., at 528 (this power, which the Colonies possessed, remains in the States “at the present day, in so far as its exercise may be not incompatible with, or restrained by, the rights conveyed to the Federal government by the Constitution”).

 This view is fully consistent with the balancing approach to Commerce Clause decisionmaking enunciated in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137 (1970), relied on so heavily by the Court. Ante, at 336. In Pike, the Court stated:
“Where the statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. ... If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and on whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities.” 397 U. S., at 142.
Given the primacy of the local interest here, in the absence of conflicting federal regulation I would require one challenging a state conservation law on Commerce Clause grounds to establish a far greater burden on interstate commerce than is shown in this case. See infra, at 344-345. See also Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333, 350 (1977): “[O]ur opinions have long recognized that, 'in the absence of conflicting legislation by Congress, there is a residuum of power in the state to make laws governing matteis of local concern which nevertheless in some measure affect interstate commerce or even, to some extent, regulate it’ H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, 567 (1949) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting): “Behind the distinction between 'substantial’ and ‘incidental’ burdens upon interstate commerce is a recognition that, in the absence of federal regulation, it is sometimes — of course not always — of greater importance that local interests be protected than that interstate commerce be not touched.”

 The Court seems to doubt the conservation purpose of the Oklahoma law because the State places no limit on the number of minnows a licensed dealer may take from state waters and imposes no regulation governing the disposition of minnows within the State. Ante, at 337-338, and n. 20. But the State could rationally have concluded that it could adequately preserve its natural minnow population without such additional measures. Tr. of Oral Arg. 18, 20, 21-23. Since, in my view, the prohibition on export of naturally seined minnows imposes little, if any, burden on the interstate commerce in minnows, the State has not violated the Commerce Clause by choosing an export ban on natural minnows as the means to effectuate its special interest in conserving wildlife located within its territorial limits.

 Thus, even putting aside the decision in Geer and the principles for which it has come to be known and considering the Oklahoma statute “according to the same general rule applied to state regulations of other natural resources,” ante, at 335, the Court still has failed to explain how Oklahoma’s laws burden or discriminate against interstate commerce in minnows.