Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 26

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 17–532 
_________________ 

CLAYVIN HERRERA, PETITIONER v. WYOMING 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF 
WYOMING, SHERIDAN COUNTY 

[May 20, 2019] 

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE 

THOMAS, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH join, dissenting. 

The Court’s opinion in this case takes a puzzling course. 
The Court holds that members of the Crow Tribe retain a 
virtually  unqualified  right  under  the  Treaty  Between  the 
United  States  of  America  and  the  Crow  Tribe  of  Indians 
(1868  Treaty)  to  hunt  on  land  that  is  now  part  of  the 
Bighorn National Forest.  This interpretation of the treaty
is  debatable  and  is  plainly  contrary  to  the  decision  in 
Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U. S. 504 (1896), which construed
identical language in a closely related treaty.  But even if 
the Court’s interpretation of the treaty is correct, its deci-
sion will have no effect if the members of the Crow  Tribe 
are  bound  under  the  doctrine  of  issue  preclusion  by  the
judgment in Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis, 73 F. 3d 982, 
992–993  (CA10  1995)  (holding  that  the  hunting  right 
conferred by that treaty is no longer in force). 

That judgment was based on two independent grounds,
and  the  Court  deals  with  only  one  of  them.    The  Court 
holds that the first ground no longer provides an adequate
reason  to  give  the  judgment  preclusive  effect  due  to  an 
intervening  change  in  the  legal  context.  But  the  Court 
sidesteps  the  second  ground  and  thus  leaves  it  up  to  the 
state  courts  to  decide  whether  the  Repsis  judgment  con-
tinues  to  have  binding  effect.  If  it  is  still  binding—and  I 
think  it  is—then  no  member  of  the  Tribe  will  be  able