Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2018 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

HERRERA v. WYOMING 

CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF WYOMING, 
SHERIDAN COUNTY 

No. 17–532.  Argued January 8, 2019—Decided May 20, 2019 

An  1868  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  the  Crow  Tribe  prom-
ised that in exchange for most of the Tribe’s territory in modern-day 
Montana  and  Wyoming,  its  members  would  “have  the  right  to  hunt 
on the unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be 
found thereon . . . and peace subsists . . . on the borders of the hunt-
ing  districts.”    15  Stat.  650.    In  2014,  Wyoming  charged  petitioner
Clayvin Herrera with off-season hunting in Bighorn National Forest 
and  being  an  accessory  to  the  same.    The  state  trial  court  rejected 
Herrera’s argument that he had a protected right to hunt in the for-
est  pursuant  to  the  1868  Treaty,  and  a  jury  convicted  him.    On  ap-
peal,  the  state  appellate  court  relied  on  the  reasoning  of  the  Tenth 
Circuit’s  decision  in  Crow  Tribe  of  Indians v.  Repsis,  73  F. 3d  982— 
which  in  turn  relied  upon  this  Court’s  decision  in  Ward  v.  Race 
Horse,  163  U. S.  504—and  held  that  the  treaty  right  expired  upon 
Wyoming’s  statehood.    The  court  rejected  Herrera’s  argument  that 
this Court’s subsequent decision in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of 
Chippewa  Indians,  526  U. S.  172,  repudiated  Race  Horse  and  there-
fore undercut the logic of Repsis.  In any event, the court concluded, 
Herrera  was  precluded  from  arguing  that  the  treaty  right  survived
Wyoming’s statehood because the Crow Tribe had litigated Repsis on 
behalf of itself and its members.  Even if the 1868 Treaty right sur-
vived Wyoming’s statehood, the court added, it did not permit Herre-
ra  to  hunt  in  Bighorn  National  Forest  because  the  treaty  right  ap-
plies  only  on  unoccupied  lands  and  the  national  forest  became 
categorically occupied when it was created. 

Held: 

1. The  Crow  Tribe’s  hunting  rights  under  the  1868  Treaty  did  not 

expire upon Wyoming’s statehood.  Pp. 6–17.