Andrus v. Allard
Headline: Court upholds federal ban on selling parts of protected birds, letting Interior bar commercial trade in artifacts even if the bird parts were lawfully taken before federal protection, affecting collectors and dealers nationwide.
Holding: The Court held that federal conservation laws allow the Interior to forbid sale or purchase of protected birds’ parts even if lawfully taken before protection, and such a sales ban is not a Fifth Amendment taking.
- Bars selling artifacts containing protected bird parts, even if lawfully taken earlier.
- Exposes collectors and dealers to criminal penalties for sales of such items.
- Allows Interior to permit possession and transport but not commercial trade.
Summary
Background
A group of people who buy, sell, and appraise Indian artifacts challenged federal rules after two sellers were prosecuted under conservation laws. The rules, issued by the Interior Department, allow possession and transport of bird parts taken before federal protection but forbid importing, exporting, buying, or selling those parts. The sellers argued the statutes do not reach items lawfully obtained before the laws took effect and that a sales ban would unlawfully take their property without compensation.
Reasoning
The Court began with the written words of the laws. It found that the Eagle Protection Act expressly excepts only possession and transport of preexisting eagle parts, so Congress chose not to allow sales. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act contains a broad sales ban and no statutory sales exception, and its text, related laws, and conservation purpose support the Secretary’s rule forbidding commercial transactions in preexisting bird parts. The Court also rejected the property claim under the Fifth Amendment, explaining that the rules do not require surrender or physical seizure, leave owners the rights to possess, transport, donate, devise, or display items, and that loss of sales opportunity alone is not necessarily a taking.
Real world impact
As a result, dealers, collectors, and museums may no longer lawfully sell or buy artifacts that include parts of currently protected birds even if those parts were acquired before federal protection. The decision upholds criminal and regulatory enforcement of the sales ban while leaving possession and movement of such items permitted.
Dissents or concurrances
The Chief Justice agreed with the judgment of the Court, concurring in the result.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?