Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

Herrera v. Wyoming

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Herrera v. Wyoming
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: January 8, 2019
Decided: May 20, 2019
Outcome
Vacated and remanded
Vote
5-4
Majority
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting
Samuel Alito • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Brett Kavanaugh

Herrera v. Wyoming is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 8, 2019, during the court's 2018-2019 term. The court vacated and remanded the ruling of the Wyoming Fourth Judicial District Court, holding the "Crow Tribe’s hunting rights under the 1868 Treaty did not expire upon Wyoming’s statehood."[1] The case came on a writ of certiorari to the Wyoming Fourth Judicial District Court.[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Clayvin Herrera, a member of the Crow Tribe of Indians, was hunting elk on the Crow Reservation. He and other tribal members shot three elk after following the animals out of the Crow Reservation and into the Big Horn National Forest. He was charged with two misdemeanors for hunting without a license and during closed season. Herrera sought to have the charges dismissed, arguing that the 1868 Crow Treaty gave him the right to hunt where and when he did and that the treaty preempted state law.
  • The issue: Whether Wyoming's admission to the Union or the establishment of the Bighorn National Forest abrogated the Crow Tribe of Indians' 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the "unoccupied lands of the United States," thereby permitting the present-day criminal conviction of a Crow member who engaged in subsistence hunting for his family.[3]
  • The outcome: The court vacated and remanded the ruling of the Wyoming Fourth Judicial District Court, holding the "Crow Tribe’s hunting rights under the 1868 Treaty did not expire upon Wyoming’s statehood."[1]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[4]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • May 20, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Wyoming Fourth Judicial District Court's ruling
    • January 8, 2019: Oral argument
    • June 28, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear case
    • October 5, 2017: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 25, 2017: The Wyoming Fourth Judicial District Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the Crow Treaty did not preempt the state's laws against off-reservation hunting.

    Background

    Clayvin Herrera, a member of the Crow Tribe of Indians, was hunting elk on the Crow Reservation. He and other tribal members shot three elk after following the animals out of the Crow Reservation and into the Big Horn National Forest. He was charged with two misdemeanors for hunting without a license and during closed season. Herrera sought to have the charges dismissed, arguing that the 1868 Crow Treaty gave him the right to hunt where and when he did and that the treaty preempted state law.[5]

    The circuit court denied Herrera's motion to dismiss, citing Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis in its ruling that it was "bound by the Tenth Circuit's holding that Crow Tribe members do not have off-reservation treaty hunting rights anywhere within the state of Wyoming."[4]

    Herrera appealed, and the Wyoming Fourth Judicial District Court affirmed the circuit court's decision. The district court ruled that it was "proper for the circuit court to adopt the reasoning in the Repsis decision, and bar Herrera from asserting the invalidated treaty hunting right as a defense to the criminal prosecution."[4]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    Questions presented:
    • Whether Wyoming's admission to the Union or the establishment of the Bighorn National Forest abrogated the Crow Tribe of Indians' 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the "unoccupied lands of the United States," thereby permitting the present-day criminal conviction of a Crow member who engaged in subsistence hunting for his family.

    Outcome

    In a 5-4 decision, the court vacated and remanded the ruling of the Wyoming Fourth Judicial District Court, holding the "Crow Tribe’s hunting rights under the 1868 Treaty did not expire upon Wyoming’s statehood."[1]

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh.[1]

    Opinion

    In her opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “ The Wyoming courts held that the treaty-protected hunting right expired when Wyoming became a State and, in any event, does not permit hunting in Bighorn National Forest because that land is not "unoccupied." We disagree. The Crow Tribe’s hunting right survived Wyoming’s statehood, and the lands within Bighorn National Forest did not become categorically "occupied" when set aside as a national reserve. [6] ”

    Sotomayor also wrote:[1]

    “ This decision is limited in two ways. First, the Court holds that Bighorn National Forest is not categorically occupied, not that all areas within the forest are unoccupied. Second, the state trial court decided that Wyoming could regulate the exercise of the 1868 Treaty right "in the interest of conservation," an issue not reached by the appellate court. The Court also does not address the viability of the State’s arguments on this issue. [6] ”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh.[1]

    In his dissent, Alito wrote:[1]

    “ [The Court's] 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. ...


    [The Court] leaves it up to the state courts to decide whether the Repsis judgment continues to have binding effect. If it is still binding—and I think it is—then no member of the Tribe will be able to assert the hunting right that the Court addresses.[6]

    		”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]

    Transcript

    Read the oral argument transcript here.

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Supreme Court of the United States, Herrera v. Wyoming, May 20, 2019
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "17-532 Herrera v. Wyoming.," accessed November 15, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "QPReport 17-532 Herrera v. Wyoming," accessed November 15, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 SCOTUSblog, "Herrera v. Wyoming," accessed November 15, 2018
    5. ↑ Oyez, "Herrera v. Wyoming," accessed November 15, 2018
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Herrera v. Wyoming, argued January 8, 2019
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Herrera_v._Wyoming&oldid=9117258"