Herrera v. Wyoming

The case asked whether an 1868 treaty still let Crow Tribe members hunt on unoccupied federal land in Wyoming. The Supreme Court said Wyoming's statehood did not cancel that treaty right, which mattered to a Crow member's hunting conviction after he killed elk in Bighorn National Forest.

The Court decided that Wyoming's admission to the Union did not end the Crow Tribe's treaty hunting right, but the vote count and opinion lineup are not provided here.

The decision affects tribal members who rely on old treaty promises when they hunt on federal land. For example, it can shape whether a state may punish a Crow hunter who says a treaty still protects subsistence hunting for family use.

The Supreme Court has finished this case. Wyoming courts and state officials must handle Herrera's conviction and similar disputes in line with the Court's decision.

The dispute was whether an 1868 Crow treaty still allowed tribal members to hunt on unoccupied federal land in Wyoming. The case centered on Herrera's elk hunting conviction.

Crow Tribe members and state wildlife officials are directly affected. The ruling matters when tribal hunters claim treaty protection for subsistence hunting on federal land.

The Supreme Court's work on this docket is over. Wyoming courts and officials must apply the decision when dealing with Herrera's case and related treaty-right disputes.