Introduction

Herrera v. Wyoming (139 S. Ct. 1686) marks a significant Supreme Court decision that reaffirms the survival of Indian treaty rights beyond the establishment of statehood, specifically addressing hunting rights under the 1868 Treaty between the United States and the Crow Tribe. This case involves Clayvin Herrera, a member of the Crow Tribe, who was convicted for off-season hunting in the Bighorn National Forest of Wyoming. Herrera invoked his treaty-protected hunting rights as a defense, leading to a legal battle that questioned whether these rights persisted after Wyoming's admission to the Union in 1890.

The central issues in this case pertain to the interpretation of treaty language, the application of precedent, and the principles of issue preclusion. The Supreme Court's decision not only resolves Herrera's immediate legal predicament but also sets a broader precedent for the interpretation and persistence of Native American treaty rights in the face of statehood.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, held that the Crow Tribe's hunting rights under the 1868 Treaty did not expire upon Wyoming's admission to the Union. The Court emphasized that subsequent jurisprudence, particularly MINNESOTA v. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, overruled earlier decisions like WARD v. RACE HORSE, thereby negating the argument that statehood implied the termination of treaty rights.

Furthermore, the Court determined that the Bighorn National Forest did not become categorically "occupied" as defined by the treaty when it was designated a national forest, thus allowing Herrera to invoke his treaty rights. The judgment effectively vacated and remanded the lower court's decision, allowing Herrera and similar cases to proceed under the newly clarified legal framework.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The decision meticulously analyzes prior Supreme Court rulings to establish the current legal landscape regarding Indian treaty rights:

• WARD v. RACE HORSE (163 U.S. 504, 1896): This case previously held that the admission of Wyoming as a state extinguished the hunting rights of the Shoshone and Bannock Tribes, based on the "equal footing" doctrine and the absence of perpetuity in the treaty language.
• CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS v. REPSIS (73 F.3d 982, 1995): Relied on WARD v. RACE HORSE to conclude that the 1868 Treaty hunting rights expired with Wyoming's statehood.
• MINNESOTA v. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS (526 U.S. 172, 1999): Critically evaluated and effectively overruled the reasoning in WARD v. RACE HORSE, establishing that treaty rights are not implicitly terminated by statehood unless explicitly abrogated by Congress or defined within the treaty.
• Limbach v. Hooven & Allison Co. (466 U.S. 353, 1984): Supported the notion that a prior decision loses its vitality if it has been effectively overruled, even without formal acknowledgment.
• BOBBY v. BIES (556 U.S. 825, 2009): Discussed the change-in-law exception to issue preclusion, allowing parties to relitigate issues if there has been a significant change in the legal context.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning can be broken down into several key components:

• Overruling of Prior Precedent: The Court identified that Minnesota v. Mille Lacs effectively overruled the two-fold reasoning of Race Horse. The "equal footing" doctrine and the lack of perpetuity in treaty language no longer suffice to infer the termination of treaty rights upon statehood.
• Doctrine of Issue Preclusion: The lower court relied on Repsis, which was based on Race Horse. However, since Mille Lacs repudiated Race Horse, the Court found that an exception to issue preclusion was warranted due to the intervening legal change.
• Treaty Interpretation: The Court analyzed the 1868 Treaty’s language, determining that "unoccupied" lands specifically referred to areas free of non-Indian settlement. The designation of Bighorn as a National Forest did not equate to occupation in the treaty’s context.
• Congressional Intent: There was no clear evidence that Congress intended to abrogate the treaty rights with Wyoming's statehood. The absence of explicit language in the Wyoming Statehood Act supported the conclusion that the treaty rights persisted.

Impact

The ruling in Herrera v. Wyoming has profound implications for:

• Future Legal Claims: Native American tribes can assert treaty rights without the presumption that statehood nullifies these rights, provided there is no explicit congressional abrogation.
• Wildlife Management and Conservation: States will need to navigate a balance between conservation efforts and respecting treaty-protected hunting rights, potentially requiring collaborative frameworks with tribes.
• Legal Precedence: The decision reinforces the importance of examining the most recent and binding Supreme Court rulings, ensuring that outdated precedents do not unduly influence current jurisprudence.
• State-Treaty Relations: States must acknowledge and respect treaty rights unless unequivocally altered by subsequent legislative or judicial action.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Equal Footing Doctrine

This principle asserts that all states admitted to the Union enter on an "equal footing" with existing states, possessing the same rights and powers. Historically, this doctrine was used to argue that new states could override or nullify certain treaty rights previously held by Native American tribes. However, Mille Lacs clarified that treaty rights are not implicitly terminated by statehood unless Congress explicitly states so or the treaty itself provides for such termination.

Issue Preclusion

Also known as collateral estoppel, issue preclusion prevents parties from relitigating issues that have already been definitively resolved in previous legal actions. In this case, the initial ruling in Repsis based on Race Horse was argued to preclude Herrera from asserting his treaty rights. However, the Supreme Court determined that a significant legal shift via Mille Lacs warranted an exception, allowing Herrera to reassert his rights under the updated legal framework.

Occupied vs. Unoccupied Lands

The treaty's language distinguishing "occupied" from "unoccupied" lands is pivotal. "Unoccupied" lands, as understood in the treaty, refer to areas without non-Indian settlement or occupation. The creation of a National Forest, which restricts settlement, does not equate to occupation under the treaty's terms. Thus, such lands remain "unoccupied" and subject to treaty-protected hunting rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Herrera v. Wyoming serves as a landmark affirmation that Indian treaty rights, specifically hunting rights under the 1868 Treaty with the Crow Tribe, are preserved beyond the advent of statehood unless explicitly revoked by Congress or outlined within the treaty itself. By overruling the outdated Race Horse precedent through the lens of Mille Lacs, the Court ensures that treaty protections remain robust and are not undermined by state expansion or changing legal doctrines.

This decision not only upholds the treaty rights of the Crow Tribe but also reinforces the broader legal principle that treaty agreements with Native American tribes hold enduring significance and must be interpreted in line with contemporary legal standards and understandings. The ruling balances the sovereignty of Native American tribes with state regulatory powers, promoting a respectful and legally coherent coexistence.