Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

18 

HERRERA v. WYOMING 

Opinion of the Court 

right,  even  if  still  valid  after  Wyoming’s  statehood,  does 
not  protect  hunting  in  Bighorn  National  Forest  because 
the  forest  lands  are  “occupied.”  We  agree  with  Herrera 
and  the  United  States  that  Bighorn  National  Forest  did
not become categorically “occupied” within the meaning of
the 1868 Treaty when the national forest was created.5 

—————— 

5 Wyoming  argues  that  the  judgment  below  should  be  affirmed  be-
cause  the  Tenth  Circuit  held  in  Repsis  that  the  creation  of  the  forest 
rendered the land “occupied,” see 73 F. 3d, at 994, and thus Herrera is 
precluded  from  raising  this  issue.    We  did  not  grant  certiorari  on  the 
question  of  how  preclusion  principles  would  apply  to  the  alternative
judgment in Repsis, and—although our dissenting colleagues disagree, 
see post, at 13, and n. 6—the decision below did not address that issue. 
The  Wyoming  appellate  court  agreed  with  the  State  that  “the  pri-
mary  issue  in  [Herrera’s]  case  is  identical  to  the  primary  issue  in  the 
Repsis  case.”   No.  2016–242  (4th  Jud.  Dist.,  Sheridan  Cty.,  Wyo.,  Apr. 
25,  2017),  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  13  (emphasis  added).    That  “primary 
issue”  was  the  Race  Horse  ground  of  decision,  not  the  “occupation”
ground,  which  Repsis  referred  to  as  “an  alternative  basis  for  affir-
mance,”  Repsis,  73  F. 3d,  at  993,  and  which  the  Wyoming  court  itself 
described  as  an  “alternativ[e]”  holding,  No.  2016–242,  App.  to  Pet.  for 
Cert. 33.  Reading the state court’s decision to give preclusive effect to 
the  occupation  ground  as  well  would  not  fit  with  the  Wyoming  court’s 
preclusion analysis, which, among other things, relied on a decision of 
the Federal District Court in Repsis that did not address the occupation 
issue.   See No. 2016–242, App. to Pet. for Cert. 14, 18; see also Repsis, 
73  F. 3d,  at  993  (explaining  that  “the  district  court  did  not  reach  [the 
occupation] issue”).  Context thus makes clear that the state court gave
issue-preclusive effect only to Repsis’ holding that the 1868 Treaty was 
no  longer  valid,  not  to  Repsis’  independent,  narrower  holding  that
Bighorn  National  Forest  in  particular  was  “occupied”  land.    The  court 
may not have addressed the issue-preclusive effect of the latter holding 
because  of  ambiguity  in  the  State’s  briefing.  See  Appellee’s  Supple-
mental Brief in No. 2016–242, pp. 4, 11–12. 

While  the  dissent  questions  whether  forfeiture  could  have  played  a 
part in the state court’s analysis given that the court invited the parties
to  submit  supplemental  briefs  on  preclusion,  post,  at  13,  n. 6,  the 
parties suggest that Wyoming failed adequately to raise the claim even 
in its supplemental brief.  See Brief for Petitioner 49 (“the state made 
no  such  argument  before”  the  state  court);  Brief  for  United  States  as 
Amicus Curiae 31 (noting ambiguity in the State’s supplemental brief).