Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 38

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

13 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

first ground adopted by the Tenth Circuit in Repsis—that 
is, the ground that relied on Race Horse.  Ante, at 18, n. 5. 
But nowhere in the decision below can any such limitation
be  found.  The  Wyoming  appellate  court  discussed  the 
second ground for the Repsis judgment, see App. to Pet. for 
Cert.  22  (“[T]he  creation  of  the  Big  Horn  National  Forest 
resulted  in  the  ‘occupation’  of  the  land,  extinguishing  the
off-reservation  hunting  right”),  and  it  concluded  that  the 
judgment  in  Repsis,  not  just  one  of  the  grounds  for  that
judgment,  “preclude[s]  Herrera  from  attempting  to  reliti-
gate  the  validity  of  the  off-reservation  hunting  right  that
was  previously  held  to  be  invalid,”  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.
31.6 

2 
Herrera  takes  a  different  approach  in  attempting  to
circumvent  the  effect  of  the  alternative  Repsis  ground.
When  a  judgment  rests  on  two  independently  sufficient 

—————— 

6 The  decision  below,  in  other  words,  held  that  the  issue  that  was 
precluded was whether members of the Crow Tribe have a treaty right 
to  hunt  in  Bighorn.    The  majority  rejects  this  definition  of  the  issue, 
and  instead  asks  only  whether  the  first  line  of  reasoning  in  Repsis 
retains  preclusive  effect.    Such  hairsplitting  conflicts  with  the  funda-
mental  purpose  of  issue  preclusion—laying  legal  disputes  at  rest.    If 
courts  allow  a  party  to  escape  preclusion  whenever  a  decision  on  one 
legal  question  can  be  divided  into  multiple  or  alternate  parts,  the 
doctrine of preclusion would lose its value.  The majority’s “[n]arrower 
definition  of  the  issues  resolved  augments  the  risk  of  apparently
inconsistent  results”  and  undermines  the  objectives  of  finality  and 
economy  served  by  preclusion.    18  C.  Wright,  A.  Miller,  &  E.  Cooper,
Federal Practice and Procedure §4417, p. 470 (3d ed. 2016). 

The  Court  also  hints  that  the  state  court  might  have  thought  that 
Wyoming  forfeited  reliance  on  issue  preclusion,  ante,  at  18,  n. 5,  but 
there  is  no  basis  for  that  suggestion.    The  Wyoming  appellate  court 
invited  the  parties  to  submit  supplemental  briefs  on  issue  preclusion 
and  specifically  held  that  “it  [was]  proper  for  the  Court  to  raise  this 
issue  sua  sponte  when  no  factual  development  is  required,  and  the 
parties are given an opportunity to fully brief the issues.”  App. to Pet. 
for Cert. 10, n. 2.