Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

8 

HERRERA v. WYOMING 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

is  conclusive.”    Arizona  v.  California,  460  U. S.  605,  619 
(1983).  “The  idea  is  straightforward:  Once  a  court  has
decided  an  issue,  it  is forever  settled  as  between  the  par-
ties,  thereby  protecting  against  the  expense  and  vexation 
attending multiple lawsuits, conserving judicial resources, 
and fostering reliance on judicial action by minimizing the
possibility  of  inconsistent  verdicts.”    B&B  Hardware,  Inc. 
v.  Hargis  Industries,  Inc.,  575  U. S.  138,  ___  (2015)  (slip 
op.,  at  8)  (internal  quotation  marks,  citation,  and  altera-
tions  omitted).  Succinctly  put,  “a  losing  litigant  deserves 
no  rematch  after  a  defeat  fairly  suffered.”  Astoria  Fed. 
Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U. S. 104, 107 (1991). 

Under  federal  issue-preclusion  principles,4  “once  an 
issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of 
competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in 
subsequent  suits  based  on  a  different  cause  of  action 
involving  a  party  to  the  prior  litigation.”    Montana  v. 
United  States,  440  U. S.  147,  153  (1979).    That  standard 
for issue preclusion is met here. 

In Repsis, the central issue—and the question on which 
the  Crow  Tribe  sought  a  declaratory  judgment—was
whether members of the Tribe “have an unrestricted right 
to hunt and fish on Big Horn National Forest lands.”  866 
F. Supp.,  at  521.  The  Tenth  Circuit’s  judgment  settled 
that question by holding that “the Tribe and its members 
are  subject  to  the  game  laws  of  Wyoming.”  73  F. 3d,  at 
994.  In this case, Herrera asserts the same hunting right 
that  was  actually  litigated  and  decided  against  his  Tribe 
in  Repsis.    He  does  not  suggest  that  either  the  Federal 
District  Court  or  the  Tenth  Circuit  lacked  jurisdiction  to 

—————— 

4 The preclusive effect of the judgment of a federal court is governed
by federal law, regardless of whether that judgment’s preclusive effect
is  later  asserted  in  a  state  or  federal  forum.  Taylor  v.  Sturgell,  553 
U. S. 880, 892 (2008).  This means that the preclusive effect of Repsis, 
decided  by  a  federal  court,  is  governed  by  federal  law,  not  Wyoming 
law, even though preclusion was asserted in a Wyoming court.