Despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Wyoming v. Herrera, which affirmed that the Crow Tribe’s treaty-reserved right to hunt in the Big Horn National Forest remained intact following Wyoming’s statehood, the State continued to prosecute Mr. Herrera for taking an elk in the Forest. The State argued that notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Herrera, Mr. Herrera was precluded from asserting his treaty defense because he (being in privity with the Crow Tribe as a Tribal member) was bound by the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis, which held that the Tribe’s treaty right was extinguished upon Wyoming’s statehood. Accordingly, the Crow Tribe sought relief from the Repsis judgments pursuant to Rule 60(b), so that the State could not continue to use Repsis. The Wyoming Federal District Court initially denied the Tribe’s Rule 60(b) motion, but the Tenth Circuit has now vacated that decision, remanding to the district court to consider the merits of the Tribe’s Rule 60(b) motion.

Here is the decision:

Prior posts on this matter here and here.