Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Syllabus 

dence  to  establish  that  all  land  in  Wyoming  was  functionally  “occu-
pied” by 1890, its arguments fall outside the question presented and
are unpersuasive in any event.  Pp. 13–17.

2. Bighorn National Forest did not become categorically “occupied” 
within the meaning of the 1868 Treaty when the national forest was 
created.  Construing the treaty’s terms as “ ‘they would naturally be 
understood  by  the  Indians,’ ”  Washington  v.  Washington  State  Com-
mercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn., 443 U. S. 658, 676, it is clear 
that  the  Tribe  would  have  understood  the  word  “unoccupied”  to  de-
note an area free of residence or settlement by non-Indians.  That in-
terpretation follows from several cues in the treaty’s text.  For exam-
ple,  the  treaty  made  the  hunting  right  contingent  on  peace  “among 
the  whites  and  Indians  on  the  borders  of  the  hunting  districts,”  15 
Stat. 650, thus contrasting the unoccupied hunting districts with ar-
eas of white settlement.  Historical evidence confirms this reading of 
“unoccupied.”  Wyoming’s  counterarguments  are  unavailing.    The 
Federal Government’s exercise of control and withdrawing of the for-
est lands from settlement would not categorically transform the terri-
tory into an area resided on or settled by non-Indians; quite the oppo-
site.  Nor would mining and logging of the forest lands prior to 1897
have  caused  the  Tribe  to  view  the  Bighorn  Mountains  as  occupied.
Pp. 17–21. 

3. This decision is limited in two ways.  First, the Court holds that 
Bighorn  National  Forest  is  not  categorically  occupied,  not  that  all 
areas within the forest are unoccupied.  Second, the state trial court de- 
cided  that  Wyoming  could  regulate  the  exercise  of  the  1868  Treaty
right  “in  the  interest  of  conservation,”  an  issue  not  reached  by  the
appellate court.  The Court also does not address the viability of the
State’s arguments on this issue.  Pp. 21–22. 

Vacated and remanded. 

SOTOMAYOR,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  GINS-
BURG, BREYER, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.  ALITO, J., filed a dis-
senting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and KAVANAUGH, 
JJ., joined.