United States v. Dion

Supreme Court of the United States
476 U.S. 734, 90 L. Ed. 2d 767, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 53 (1986)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Congress may abrogate Indian treaty rights, but it must express its intent to do so with sufficient clarity. This clear and plain intent can be found on the face of a statute, in its legislative history, or its surrounding circumstances, and does not require an express declaration.

Facts:

In an 1858 treaty with the United States, the Yankton Sioux Tribe ceded large amounts of land but retained a 400,000-acre reservation.
The treaty implicitly reserved the Tribe's exclusive right to hunt and fish on their reservation land.
The treaty did not place any restrictions on the Yanktons' hunting rights on their reserved land.
Dwight Dion, Sr., a member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe, shot and killed four bald eagles and one golden eagle on the reservation.
Dion also sold the carcasses and parts of these eagles and other birds.

Procedural Posture:

The United States prosecuted Dwight Dion, Sr. in the U.S. District Court for violating the Endangered Species Act and the Bald Eagle Protection Act.
The District Court dismissed the charge for shooting a golden eagle under the Eagle Protection Act prior to trial.
A jury convicted Dion on the remaining charges, including shooting bald eagles in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
Dion (the appellant) appealed his convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that the Tribe's treaty right to noncommercial hunting had not been abrogated and reversed Dion's convictions for shooting bald eagles.
The United States (the petitioner) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

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 the Bald Eagle Protection Act abrogate the Yankton Sioux Tribe's treaty right to hunt bald and golden eagles on their reservation, thus preventing a member of the tribe from using the treaty right as a defense against prosecution under that Act and the Endangered Species Act?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Marshall

Yes. The Bald Eagle Protection Act abrogates the Yankton Sioux Tribe's treaty right to hunt eagles, and therefore the treaty cannot serve as a defense to prosecution under either that Act or the Endangered Species Act. While Congress's intent to abrogate Indian treaty rights must be clear and plain, it need not be explicitly stated in the statute. The Court found this clear intent in the 1962 amendments to the Eagle Protection Act, which established a permit system allowing the Secretary of the Interior to authorize the taking of eagles 'for the religious purposes of Indian tribes.' The existence of this specific, limited exception for Indians demonstrates that Congress considered Indian hunting and chose to regulate it through a permit scheme rather than exempt it entirely, thereby abrogating the unrestricted treaty right. Because the Eagle Protection Act eliminated the treaty right to hunt eagles, that right cannot be asserted as a defense to a prosecution under the Endangered Species Act for the same conduct.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the standard for congressional abrogation of Indian treaty rights. It affirms that while Congress's intent must be 'clear and plain,' courts can infer this intent from the statutory structure and legislative history, not just from an express statement of abrogation. By finding that a specific, limited statutory exception for Indian religious practices demonstrated an intent to abrogate a broader treaty right, the Court provided a new avenue for the government to argue that general conservation statutes apply on tribal lands. This precedent potentially weakens the protection of treaty rights by allowing them to be overridden by implication, shifting the interpretive framework away from a strict requirement for explicit congressional language.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Dion (1986)

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