Andrus v. Allard

Supreme Court of United States
444 U.S. 51 (1979)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A government regulation that prohibits the commercial sale of property that was lawfully acquired prior to the regulation's enactment does not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking if the owner retains other significant rights of ownership, such as the right to possess, transport, donate, or devise the property.

Facts:

Appellees, including L. Douglas Allard, were commercial traders and appraisers of Native American artifacts.
A number of the artifacts they owned and intended to sell were partly composed of feathers from birds such as the bald eagle and golden eagle.
These bird parts were all obtained from birds killed before the Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act extended federal protection to them.
The Secretary of the Interior promulgated regulations under these Acts that prohibited the commercial sale, trade, or barter of any parts of these protected birds, regardless of when they were acquired.
Two of the appellees were criminally prosecuted for selling artifacts containing these 'pre-existing' bird parts.

Procedural Posture:

Appellees, traders in Indian artifacts, filed a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Secretary of the Interior.
A three-judge panel was convened to hear the constitutional challenge to the federal statutes and their implementing regulations.
The District Court held that the regulations were unauthorized by the statutes and violated the appellees' Fifth Amendment property rights.
The District Court declared the regulations invalid and enjoined the Secretary of the Interior from interfering with the sale of the appellees' artifacts.
The Secretary of the Interior, as appellant, appealed the decision directly to the United States Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a federal regulation prohibiting the sale of bird parts that were legally obtained before the enactment of federal conservation statutes constitute a Fifth Amendment taking of property without just compensation?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan

No. The prohibition on the sale of pre-existing avian artifacts does not constitute a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The court's reasoning rests on the principle that a regulation is not a taking simply because it diminishes the value of property or denies an owner its most profitable use. The owners in this case retain the fundamental rights to possess, transport, donate, and devise the artifacts, which represents a significant portion of the 'bundle of rights' associated with property ownership. Citing Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, the court held that the destruction of just one 'strand' of this bundle—the right to sell—is not a taking, especially when the regulation serves a substantial public purpose like conservation. The government's interest in preventing a black market for illegally obtained bird parts, which are difficult to distinguish from legally obtained older parts, justifies the restriction on commercial transactions.

Analysis:

This decision significantly solidifies the 'bundle of rights' framework in takings jurisprudence, clarifying that a regulation must extinguish more than just one economic use to be considered a compensable taking. It affirms that the government can impose substantial restrictions on commercial activity, even retroactively on legally acquired goods, to achieve a compelling public policy objective like wildlife conservation. This precedent makes it more difficult for property owners to succeed on regulatory takings claims based solely on lost profits or diminished value, providing strong legal support for environmental and other public welfare regulations.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Andrus v. Allard (1979)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature