Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

HERRERA v. WYOMING 

Opinion of the Court 

bands  of  Chippewa  Indians  the  privilege  of  hunting,  fish-
ing, and gathering in ceded lands “ ‘during the pleasure of 
the  President.’ ”  526  U. S.,  at  177  (quoting  1837  Treaty 
With the Chippewa, 7 Stat. 537).  In an opinion extensively 
discussing  and  distinguishing  Race  Horse,  the  Court  de-
cided  that  the  treaty  rights  of  the  Chippewa  bands  sur-
vived  after  Minnesota  was  admitted  to  the  Union.  526 
U. S., at 202–208. 

Mille  Lacs  approached  the  question  before  it  in  two 
stages.  The  Court  first  asked  whether  the  Act  admitting
Minnesota  to  the  Union  abrogated  the  treaty  right  of  the
Chippewa bands.  Next, the Court examined the Chippewa
Treaty  itself  for  evidence  that  the  parties  intended  the
treaty right to expire at statehood.  These inquires roughly 
track  the  two  lines  of  analysis  in  Race  Horse.  Despite 
these  parallel  analyses,  however,  the  Mille  Lacs  Court 
refused  Minnesota’s  invitation  to  rely  on  Race  Horse, 
explaining that the case had “been qualified by later deci-
sions.”  526  U. S.,  at  203.  Although  Mille  Lacs  stopped
short  of  explicitly  overruling  Race  Horse,  it  methodically 
repudiated that decision’s logic.

To begin with, in addressing the effect of the Minnesota 
Statehood  Act  on  the  Chippewa  Treaty  right,  the  Mille 
Lacs  Court  entirely rejected the “equal footing” reasoning 
applied in Race Horse.  The earlier case concluded that the 
Act  admitting  Wyoming  to  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing 
“repeal[ed]”  the  Shoshone-Bannock  Treaty  right  because 
the treaty right was “irreconcilable” with state sovereignty 
over natural resources.  Race Horse, 163 U. S., at 514.  But 
Mille Lacs explained that this conclusion “rested on a false
premise.”  526 U. S., at 204.  Later decisions showed that 
States  can  impose  reasonable  and  nondiscriminatory
regulations  on  an  Indian  tribe’s  treaty-based  hunting,
fishing, and gathering rights on state land when necessary 
for  conservation.  Id.,  at  204–205  (citing  Washington  v. 
Washington  State  Commercial  Passenger  Fishing  Vessel