The District Court's judgment upholding, against constitutional
challenge, a New Mexico statute imposing higher hunting license
fees for nonresidents than for residents of the State is affirmed
on authority of
Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm'n,
ante p.
436 U. S. 371.
Affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
This case originated as a challenge, under the Privileges and
Immunities Clause, U.S.Const., Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1, and under the
Fourteenth Amendment, to New Mexico's statutes requiring licenses
to hunt game in that State. A three-judge United States District
Court upheld the State's statutory provisions insofar as they
imposed higher license fees for nonresidents than for residents,
but the court also ruled that the statutes governing the allocation
of licenses to hunt certain rare species of game were
unconstitutional. Plaintiff-appellant Terk, a Texas resident,
appeals from that portion of the District Court's judgment that
upheld the New Mexico fee discrimination. The defendant-appellees,
who are the Director of the State's Department of Game and Fish and
the members of the State Game Commission, did not seek review of
that portion of the judgment that held the allocation of licenses
to be unconstitutional.
The issue as to the fee discrimination between residents and
nonresidents is controlled by this Court's recent decision in
Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm'n, ante p.
436 U. S. 371. On
appellant Terk's appeal, therefore, the judgment of the
Page 436 U. S. 851
United States District Court is affirmed. We express no view,
however, on the allocation issue as to which no review was
sought.
Affirmed.
Comments
Be the first to comment
Leave a Comment