## Facts

- Federal officials issued regulations under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act barring commercial transactions (including sale and barter) in protected birds and their parts.
- The regulations applied even to bird parts lawfully taken before federal protection attached and incorporated into existing Native American artifacts.
- Dealers in such artifacts faced prosecutions and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the statutes did not reach pre-protection bird parts and that the ban on sales caused an uncompensated taking.
- The District Court ruled for the dealers, concluding the statutes should be read not to cover preexisting bird parts and that the regulations violated Fifth Amendment property rights.
- The Supreme Court reversed in a unanimous opinion.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act authorize regulations prohibiting commercial transactions in protected bird parts, even when the parts were lawfully obtained before federal protection.
2. Whether prohibiting the sale of lawfully acquired bird parts effects a taking requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that both statutes permit prohibiting commercial transactions in protected bird parts regardless of when the birds were taken.
- As to the Eagle Protection Act, the Court relied on the statute’s detailed list of prohibited acts (including sale and barter) and the narrow exception for pre-Act “possession or transportation,” which did not include sale.
- As to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Court concluded the broad statutory prohibitions and conservation purposes supported regulations reaching all commerce in protected bird parts, including preexisting items.
- The Court held the sale ban did not constitute a taking because owners retained possession and other lawful noncommercial uses and were not required to surrender the property.
- The District Court’s judgment was reversed.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress enumerates prohibited acts and provides a limited exception, courts generally treat omitted activities as intentionally excluded from the exception.
- Federal wildlife protection statutes may lawfully eliminate commercial markets in protected species and their parts to prevent evasion and advance conservation goals.
- A regulation that removes the right to sell, without physical appropriation or compelled surrender, is not necessarily a compensable taking.
- Takings analysis evaluates property rights in the aggregate; destruction of a single incident of ownership, even with substantial loss of market value, does not by itself establish a taking.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld federal regulations banning commercial transactions in protected bird parts, including preexisting inventories, and ruled that eliminating the right to sell such items—while leaving owners with possession and other lawful uses—does not require compensation under the Fifth Amendment.


Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51 (1979)