United States v. Dion
United States Supreme Court case
United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that, pursuant to the Eagle Protection Act, American Indians were prohibited from hunting eagles. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the unanimous opinion of the Court.
Facts
Dwight Dion Sr., a member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, was convicted of shooting five bald eagles in violation of the Endangered Species Act, and of selling the carcasses in violation of the Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The takings occurred on the Yankton Indian Reservation. The reservation was created by an 1858 treaty; the Yankton tribe ceded all but 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) of their territory to the United States. In exchange for the land, the United States guaranteed the tribe quiet and undisturbed possession of the reserved land, as well as monetary compensation. All parties to the litigation acknowledged that the treaty granted exclusive rights to hunt and fish on the reservation.
The Eagle Protection Act, by its express terms, made it a federal offense to hunt bald or golden eagles anywhere within the United States unless provided a permit by the Secretary of the Interior. The Endangered Species Act also imposed strict sanctions on the hunting of species such as the bald eagle that have been listed as endangered or threatened.
The public source identifies “United States v. Dion” as united States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around United, States and Dion.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “United States v. Dion”, the useful work is to connect “united States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7893267. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1986 and 1858.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “United States v. Dion”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow United States v. Dion primary sources, United States v. Dion archive and United research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “United States v. Dion”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “United States v. Dion” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.