The U.S. Supreme Court case Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Allard et al., 1979 revolved around a dispute over the legality of selling artifacts made from bird parts protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Eagle Protection Act. The plaintiffs were dealers in such artifacts who argued that while these laws prohibited hunting and killing birds for commercial purposes, they did not explicitly ban commerce in bird parts obtained before the laws' enactment or through lawful means like finding dead specimens naturally. However, Secretary of Interior Cecil D. Andrus interpreted these acts as banning all sales to better protect endangered species by removing financial incentives for their exploitation entirely. In a unanimous decision led by Justice Byron White, the court ruled against Allard's interpretation that only "taking" (i.e., hunting or capturing) was illegal but not sale itself if it didn't involve further taking actions directly causing harm to bird populations. They found this reading too narrow given Congress's clear intent to provide comprehensive protection measures discouraging any form of commercial trafficking threatening these species' survival.

In the dissenting opinion for Andrus v. Allard, Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately protect private property rights as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. He contended that prohibiting commercial transactions of legally obtained eagle artifacts constituted a "taking" without just compensation. The prohibition significantly diminished the economic value of these items and therefore should be considered an infringement on property rights. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Congress' intent in passing wildlife protection laws, arguing it was not meant to completely abolish all economic value from pre-existing legal possessions but rather regulate future conduct related to endangered species. Thus, he believed this ruling overstepped its bounds and infringed upon individual liberties protected under constitutional law.