|
|
United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986)
United States v. Dion No. 85-246 Argued March 25, 1986 Decided June 11, 1986 476 U.S. 734
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
The Bald Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Protection Act) makes it a federal crime to hunt the bald eagle or the golden eagle, except that such hunting may be authorized, pursuant to a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, "for the religious purposes of Indian tribes" or for certain other narrow purposes compatible with preservation of those species. The Endangered Species Act imposes a similar ban on the hunting of the bald eagle. Respondent, a member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe, was convicted after a jury trial in Federal District Court of, inter alia, the shooting of four bald eagles in violation of the Endangered Species Act, but the court before trial dismissed a charge of shooting a golden eagle in violation of the Eagle Protection Act. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and affirmed the dismissal of the other charge, holding that members of the Tribe have a right under an 1858 treaty to hunt bald and golden eagles within the Yankton Reservation for noncommercial purposes, and that neither of the Acts in question abrogated this treaty right.
Held: The Court of Appeals erred in recognizing respondent’s treaty defense to the prosecutions. Pp. 738-746.
(a) The Eagle Protection Act abrogated the rights of members of the Yankton Sioux Tribe under the 1858 treaty to hunt the bald or golden eagle on the Yankton Reservation. Congress’ intention to abrogate Indian treaty rights must be clear and plain. Here, such intention is strongly suggested on the face of the Eagle Protection Act, and this view is supported by the legislative history. More particularly, Congress’ action in 1962 in amending the Act to extend its ban to the golden eagle and authorizing the Secretary to issue permits for Indian hunting reflected an unmistakable and explicit legislative policy choice that Indian hunting of the bald or golden eagle, except pursuant to permit, is inconsistent with the need to preserve those species. Pp. 738-745.
(b) Since the Eagle Protection Act divested respondent of his treaty right to hunt bald eagles, he had no such right to hunt bald eagles that he could assert as a defense to the Endangered Species Act charge. Pp. 745-746.
762 F.2d 674, reversed in part and remanded.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986) in 476 U.S. 734 476 U.S. 735. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=WL4DFPPRKW8XNEG.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986), in 476 U.S. 734, page 476 U.S. 735. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=WL4DFPPRKW8XNEG.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986). cited in 1986, 476 U.S. 734, pp.476 U.S. 735. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=WL4DFPPRKW8XNEG.
|