Hunt v. United States

278 U.S. 96, 49 S. Ct. 38, 73 L. Ed. 200, 1928 U.S. LEXIS 5
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 19, 1928
Docket44
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 278 U.S. 96 (Hunt v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hunt v. United States, 278 U.S. 96, 49 S. Ct. 38, 73 L. Ed. 200, 1928 U.S. LEXIS 5 (1928).

Opinion

*99 . 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 over-browsing 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 *100 the reserves to other lands, but these entirely failed, as did other paeans. 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; Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 404; McKelvey v. United States, 260 U. S. 353, 359; United States v. Alford, 274 U. S. 264, 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 such officials were proceeding in violation of the game laws of the State of Arizona, the observance of which would have so restricted the number of deer to be killed as to render futile the attempt to protect the reserves. Three'persons who had killed deer under authority of United States officials were actually arrested. Thereupon suit was brought to enjoin appellants from continuing or threatening such interference, arrest or prosecution. The court below, after a trial, found for the United States and entered a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill, with the limitation, however, that the decree should not be construed to permit the licensing of hunters to kill deer within said reserves in violation of the state game laws. 19 F. (2d) 634.

While the Solicitor Generar does not concede the authority of the court to make this limitation, he is content *101 to let the decree stand. We, therefore, pass the matter without consideration and accept the opinion and decree below, with the modification that all carcasses of deer and parts thereof shipped outside the boundaries of the reserves shall be plainly marked by tags or otherwise, in such manner as the Secretary of Agriauture may by regulations prescribe, to show that the deer were killed under his authority within the limits of the reserves.

Thus modified the decree is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Trump v. Vance
591 U.S. 786 (Supreme Court, 2020)
Utah Native Plant Society v. U.S. Forest Service
923 F.3d 860 (Tenth Circuit, 2019)
United States v. Gabrion
Sixth Circuit, 2008
National Audubon Society v. Davis
144 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (N.D. California, 2000)
Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Thomas
932 F. Supp. 368 (District of Columbia, 1996)
Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis
73 F.3d 982 (Tenth Circuit, 1995)
National Ass'n of Property Owners v. United States
499 F. Supp. 1223 (D. Minnesota, 1980)
United States v. State of Mich.
471 F. Supp. 192 (W.D. Michigan, 1979)
United States v. Michigan
471 F. Supp. 192 (W.D. Michigan, 1979)
United States v. Carl E. Brown
552 F.2d 817 (Eighth Circuit, 1977)
Vincent v. General Dynamics Corp.
427 F. Supp. 786 (N.D. Texas, 1977)
United States v. Brown
431 F. Supp. 56 (D. Minnesota, 1976)
Kleppe v. New Mexico
426 U.S. 529 (Supreme Court, 1976)
State of New Mexico v. Morton
406 F. Supp. 1237 (D. New Mexico, 1975)
Antoine v. Washington
420 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court, 1975)
State v. Antoine
511 P.2d 1351 (Washington Supreme Court, 1973)
Federal Housing Commissioner v. Reese
62 Misc. 2d 522 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1970)
New Mexico State Game Commission v. Udall
281 F. Supp. 627 (D. New Mexico, 1968)
Frost v. Garrison
201 F. Supp. 389 (D. Wyoming, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 U.S. 96, 49 S. Ct. 38, 73 L. Ed. 200, 1928 U.S. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-united-states-scotus-1928.