Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 9

6 

HERRERA v. WYOMING 

Opinion of the Court 

Herrera  because  he  is  a  member  of  the  Crow  Tribe,  and 
the  Tribe  had  litigated  the  Repsis  suit  on  behalf  of  itself 
and  its  members.  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  15–17,  31;  App.
258.  Herrera, in other words, was not allowed to relitigate 
the validity of the treaty right in his own case. 

The  court  also  held  that,  even  if  the  1868  Treaty  right 
survived Wyoming’s entry into the Union, it did not permit
Herrera to hunt in Bighorn National Forest.  Again follow-
ing  Repsis,  the  court  concluded  that  the  treaty  right  ap-
plies  only  on  “unoccupied”  lands  and  that  the  national 
forest became categorically “occupied” when it was created. 
See App.  to Pet. for Cert. 33–34;  Repsis, 73  F. 3d, at 994. 
The  state  appellate  court  affirmed  the  trial  court’s  judg-
ment and sentence. 

The  Wyoming  Supreme  Court  denied  a  petition  for 
review,  and  this  Court  granted  certiorari.  585  U. S.  ___ 
(2018).  For  the  reasons  that  follow,  we  now  vacate  and 
remand. 

II 
We  first  consider  whether  the  Crow  Tribe’s  hunting
rights  under  the  1868  Treaty  remain  valid.  Relying  on
this Court’s decision in Mille Lacs, Herrera and the United 
States  contend  that  those  rights  did  not  expire  when
Wyoming became a State in 1890.  We agree. 

A 
Wyoming  argues  that  this  Court’s  decision  in  Race 
Horse establishes that the Crow Tribe’s 1868 Treaty right 
expired at  statehood.  But this case is controlled by  Mille 
Lacs, not Race Horse. 

Race  Horse  concerned  a  hunting  right  guaranteed  in  a 
treaty  with  the  Shoshone  and  Bannock  Tribes.  The 
Shoshone-Bannock  Treaty  and  the  1868  Treaty  with  the 
Crow  Tribe  were  signed  in  the  same  year  and  contain 
identical  language  reserving  an  off-reservation  hunting