Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 16

Cite as:  587 U. S. ____ (2019) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

We conclude that a change in law justifies an exception
to  preclusion  in  this  case.  There  is  no  question  that  the
Tenth  Circuit  in  Repsis  relied  on  this  Court’s  binding
decision  in  Race  Horse  to  conclude  that  the  1868  Treaty 
right terminated upon Wyoming’s statehood.  See 73 F. 3d, 
at  994.  When  the  Tenth  Circuit  reached  its  decision  in 
Repsis, it had no authority to disregard this Court’s hold-
ing  in  Race  Horse  and  no  ability  to  predict  the  analysis
this  Court  would  adopt  in  Mille  Lacs.  Mille  Lacs  repudi-
ated Race  Horse’s reasoning.  Although we recognize that 
it  may  be  difficult  at  the  margins  to  discern  whether  a 
particular  legal  shift  warrants  an  exception  to  issue  pre-
clusion,  this  is  not  a  marginal  case.  At  a  minimum,  a 
repudiated  decision  does  not  retain  preclusive  force.  See 
Limbach, 466 U. S., at 363.3 

C 
We  now  consider  whether,  applying  Mille  Lacs,  Wyo-
ming’s admission to the Union abrogated the Crow Tribe’s 
off-reservation treaty hunting right.  It did not. 

First,  the  Wyoming  Statehood  Act  does  not  show  that 
Congress  intended  to  end  the  1868  Treaty  hunting  right. 
If Congress seeks to abrogate treaty rights, “it must clearly 
—————— 

Tulsa, 198 F. 3d 1219, 1222–1223 (CA10 2000); Mendelovitz v. Adolph 
Coors Co., 693 F. 2d 570, 579 (CA5 1982). 

3 We do not address whether a different outcome would be justified if
the  State  had  identified  “compelling  concerns  of  repose  or  reliance.”
See  18  C.  Wright,  A.  Miller,  &  E.  Cooper,  Federal  Practice  and  Proce-
dure §4425, p. 726 (3d ed. 2016).  Wyoming here has not done so.  The 
State  suggests  that  public  support  for  its  conservation  efforts  may  be
jeopardized  if  it  no  longer  has  “unquestioned”  authority  over  wildlife 
management  in  the  Bighorn  Mountains.    Brief  for  Respondent  54.
Wyoming  does  not  explain  why  its  authority  to  regulate  Indians  exer-
cising  their  treaty  rights  when  necessary  for  conservation  is  not  suffi-
cient  to  preserve  that  public  support,  see  infra,  at  22.    The  State’s 
passing  reference  to  upsetting  the  settled  expectations  of  private 
property owners is unconvincing because the 1868 Treaty right applies 
only to “unoccupied lands of the United States.”