TERK v. GORDON, DIRECTOR, NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, et al.
No. 77-1042.
Decided June 12, 1978
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. 371. On appellant Terk’s appeal, therefore, the judgment of the United States District Court is affirmed. We express no view, however, on the allocation issue as to which no review was sought.
Affirmed.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.