Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

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

17 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

are unavailing.

Herrera  contends  that  he  is  not  bound  by  the  Repsis
judgment because he was not a party, but this argument is
clearly  wrong.    Indian  hunting  rights,  like  most  Indian
treaty rights, are reserved to the Tribe as a whole.  Herrera’s 
entitlement  derives  solely  from  his  membership  in  the
Tribe;  it  is  not  personal  to  him.    As  a  result,  a  judgment
determining the rights of the Tribe has preclusive effect in 
subsequent  litigation  involving  an  individual  member  of 
the  Tribe.  Cf.  Hinderlider  v.  La  Plata  River  &  Cherry 
Creek  Ditch  Co.,  304  U. S.  92,  106–108  (1938)  (judgment 
as to water rights of a State is binding on individual resi-
dents  of  State).  That  rule  applies  equally  to  binding 
judgments  finding  in  favor  of  and  against  asserted  tribal
rights.

Herrera  also  argues  that  a  judgment  in  a  civil  action
should not have preclusive effect in a subsequent criminal
prosecution,  but  this  argument  would  unjustifiably  pre-
vent  the  use  of  the  declaratory  judgment  device  to  deter-
mine potential criminal exposure.  The Declaratory Judg-
ment Act provides an equitable remedy allowing a party to 
ask a federal court to “declare [the party’s] rights” through
an order with “the force and effect of a final judgment.”  28 
U. S. C. §2201(a).  The Act thus allows a person to obtain a 
definitive  ex  ante  determination  of  his  or  her  right  to
engage  in  conduct  that  might  otherwise  be  criminally
punishable.    It  thereby  avoids  “putting  the  challenger  to
the choice between abandoning his rights or risking prose-
cution.”  MedImmune,  Inc.  v.  Genentech,  Inc.,  549  U. S. 
118,  129  (2007). 
If  the  Tribe  had  prevailed  in  Repsis, 
surely  Herrera  would  expect  that  Wyoming  could  not 
attempt to relitigate the question in this case and in pros-
ecutions  of  other  members  of  the  Tribe.    A  declaratory 
judgment  “is  conclusive  . . .  as  to  the  matters  declared” 
when the State prevails just as it would be when the party
challenging  the  State  is  the  winning  party.    Restatement