Here is the order in Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis (D. Wyo.):
Tenth Circuit order here.
Lower court materials here.
Crow Tribe v. Repsis
10th Cir. Decision in Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis
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.
Tenth Circuit Briefs in Crow Tribe v. Repsis
Federal Court Rejects Crow Tribe Effort to Reopen Repsis Case Post-Herrera v. Wyoming
Here are the materials in Crow Tribe v. Repsis (D. Wyo.):
Prior post here.
Crow Tribe Attempts to Reopen Crow Treaty Rights Suit
Here is the motion in Crow Tribe v. Repsis (D. Wyo.):
An excerpt:
But that was not the end of the story. In 2014, Clayvin B. Herrera, a Crow Tribe member, along with other Crow Tribe members in his hunting party, took three elk in the Bighorn National Forest. Mr. Herrera was cited for, and convicted of, violations of Wyoming hunting laws. Mr. Herrera’s case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the Crow Tribe’s off-reservation treaty hunting right was not extinguished by Wyoming’s statehood. Herrera v. Wyoming, 139 S. Ct. 1686, 1700 (2019). In so doing, the Court also held “that Race Horse is repudiated to the extent it held that treaty rights can be impliedly extinguished at statehood.” Id. at 1697. Today, this Court has the opportunity to relieve the Crow Tribe from the judgment, based on Race Horse, that it entered more than 25 years ago.
This is precisely the sort of circumstance that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 was written to remedy. This Court’s Repsis judgment remains in force; but that judgment was based entirely on a case that has been expressly and entirely repudiated by the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed the vitality of the very same treaty right that that this Court and the Tenth Circuit found extinct. To allow this Court’s Repsis judgment—which might have been correct when it was made, but now has been unequivocally repudiated by the Supreme Court—to bar the Crow Tribe and its members from legally exercising their off-reservation treaty hunting rights would be a profound injustice. Equity requires that the Crow Tribe, and by extension its members, be relieved from this Court’s Repsis judgment, which this Court should now vacate.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.