Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington,  D. C.  20543,  of  any  typographical  or  other  formal  errors,  in  order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 17–532 
_________________ 

CLAYVIN HERRERA, PETITIONER v. WYOMING 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF 
WYOMING, SHERIDAN COUNTY 

[May 20, 2019] 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 
In  1868,  the  Crow  Tribe  ceded  most  of  its  territory  in
modern-day Montana and Wyoming to the United States. 
In  exchange,  the  United  States  promised  that  the  Crow
Tribe  “shall  have  the  right  to  hunt  on  the  unoccupied
lands of the United States so long as game  may be found 
thereon”  and  “peace  subsists  . . .  on  the  borders  of  the 
hunting  districts.”  Treaty  Between  the  United  States  of 
America and the Crow Tribe of Indians (1868 Treaty), Art. 
IV, May 7, 1868, 15 Stat. 650.  Petitioner Clayvin Herrera,
a  member  of  the  Tribe,  invoked  this  treaty  right  as  a 
defense  against  charges  of  off-season  hunting  in  Bighorn
National  Forest  in  Wyoming.  The  Wyoming  courts  held
that  the  treaty-protected  hunting  right  expired  when 
Wyoming  became  a  State  and,  in  any  event,  does  not 
permit  hunting  in  Bighorn  National  Forest  because  that
land is not “unoccupied.”  We disagree.  The Crow Tribe’s 
hunting  right  survived  Wyoming’s  statehood,  and  the 
lands  within  Bighorn  National  Forest  did  not  become
categorically  “occupied”  when  set  aside  as  a  national 
reserve.