C.F.R. » Title 50 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER B—TAKING, POSSESSION, TRANSPORTATION, SALE, PURCHASE, BARTER, EXPORTATION, AND IMPORTATION OF WILDLIFE AND PLANTS › PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS › Subpart A—Introduction and General Requirements

50 C.F.R. § 21.2

Purpose of this part

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The regulations contained in this part supplement the general permit regulations of part 13 of this subchapter with respect to permits for the taking, possession, transportation, sale, purchase, barter, importation, exportation, and banding or marking of migratory birds. This part also provides certain exceptions to permit requirements for public, scientific, or educational institutions, and establishes depredation orders which provide limited exceptions to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712).

[54 FR 38150, Sept. 14, 1989. Redesignated and amended at 87 FR 880, Jan. 7, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2021 · leading case: Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51 (1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51 (1979). · cites it 3× “The regulations provide in pertinent part: 50 CFR § 21.2 (a) (1978): “Migratory birds, their parts, nests, or eggs, lawfully acquired prior to the effective date of Federal protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act .”
Melissa Thornley v. Clearview AI, Inc., 984 F.3d 1241 (7th Cir. 2021). “51, 54 (1979) (citing 50 C.F.R. § 21.2 (a) (1978)). The Supreme Court understood this as a regulatory prohibition against commerce in the covered birds and bird parts, and it upheld the regula- tions.”
Paul Conti & Conti Corp. (As Owner of F/v Providenza) v. United States, 291 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “See 50 C.F.R. § 21.2 (a) (1978) (promulgated pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act); 50 C.”
Melissa Thornley v. Clearview AI, Inc. (7th Cir. 2021). “51, 54 (1979) (citing 50 C.F.R. § 21.2 (a) (1978)). The Supreme Court understood this as a regulatory prohibition against commerce in the covered birds and bird parts, and it upheld the regula- tions.”
Melissa Thornley v. Clearview AI, Inc. (7th Cir. 2021). “51, 54 (1979) (citing 50 C.F.R. § 21.2 (a) (1978)). The Supreme Court understood this as a regulatory prohibition against commerce in the covered birds and bird parts, and it upheld the regula- tions.”
Melissa Thornley v. Clearview AI, Inc. (7th Cir. 2021). “51, 54 (1979) (citing 50 C.F.R. § 21.2 (a) (1978)). The Supreme Court understood this as a regulatory prohibition against commerce in the covered birds and bird parts, and it upheld the regula- tions.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.