In which of the following Supreme Court decisions did the ruling reject the contention that state ownership of wildlife barred federal wildlife regulation?

The correct answer, which addresses the issue of whether state ownership of wildlife prevents federal regulation, is rooted in the case of Missouri v. Holland. In this decision, the Supreme Court upheld the power of the federal government to regulate migratory bird hunting despite states asserting ownership and control over wildlife within their borders.

The ruling was significant as it established the principle that federal laws addressing wildlife, particularly in the context of migratory species, could preempt state regulations when there is a valid exercise of federal authority under international treaties. This decision illustrated the balance of power between state and federal governance, particularly in matters of wildlife management and conservation, by recognizing the federal interest that can supersede state claims of ownership.

In contrast, other cases such as Geer v. Connecticut primarily dealt with state sovereignty over wildlife and did not address federal authority in the same manner. Martin v. Waddell involved property rights and state ownership issues related to oyster beds rather than federal regulation of wildlife. Lacey v. Jones is less well-known and does not have the same relevance to federal versus state authority in wildlife regulation as Missouri v. Holland does.