No. 17-532 In the Supreme Court of the United States CLAYVIN HERRERA, PETITIONER v. STATE OF WYOMING ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF WYOMING, SHERIDAN COUNTY BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record JEFFREY H. WOOD Acting Assistant Attorney General EDWIN S. KNEEDLER Deputy Solicitor General FREDERICK LIU Assistant to the Solicitor General ELIZABETH ANN PETERSON RACHEL HERON Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Crow Tribe of Indians’ right under the Second Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868 to hunt on “unoc- cupied lands of the United States” survived Wyoming’s admission to the Union. 2. Whether the establishment of a National Forest, in and of itself, renders lands within that forest “[]occu- pied” under the 1868 Treaty. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Interest of the United States....................................................... 1 Statement ...................................................................................... 1 Summary of argument ................................................................. 8 Argument ..................................................................................... 10 I. The Crow’s right to hunt under the 1868 Treaty was not extinguished by Wyoming’s admission to the Union ........................................................................ 11 A. Wyoming’s admission to the Union did not terminate the Crow’s right to hunt under the 1868 Treaty .............................................................. 11 1. The 1868 Treaty does not provide for the hunting right to terminate at statehood ......... 11 2. Wyoming’s statehood Act did not repeal the hunting right reserved by the 1868 Treaty ................................................................ 15 B. In light of Mille Lacs, Race Horse does not compel a different conclusion ................................. 16 C. Petitioner should not be precluded from litigating whether the treaty right survived statehood .................................................................. 23 II. The establishment of the Bighorn National Forest did not itself render lands within that forest occupied under the 1868 Treaty ................................... 24 A. Under the 1868 Treaty, “unoccupied lands” are lands that have not been settled ..................... 25 B. Lands do not become settled simply by virtue of becoming part of the National Forest System ...................................................................... 26 C. Petitioner should not be precluded from litigating whether National Forest lands are categorically occupied ............................................. 30 Conclusion ................................................................................... 32 (III) IV TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (1975) ...................... 29 Blackfeather v. United States, 190 U.S. 368 (1903) ............ 24 Bobby v. Bies, 556 U.S. 825 (2009) ....................................... 24 Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis: 866 F. Supp. 520 (D. Wyo. 1994), aff  ’d, 73 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1221 (1996) ........................... 4, 5, 9, 23, 24, 30 73 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1221 (1996) ......................................... passim Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) ............................ 31 Hebah v. United States, 428 F.2d 1334 (Ct. Cl. 1970) ........ 23 Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92 (1938) ........................................................ 24 Holcomb v. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 382 F.2d 1013 (9th Cir. 1967) ...................................................................... 20 Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993) ....................... 13 Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999)..................................................... passim Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) ..... 1, 2, 3, 11 Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989) ..................................................... 21 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Fish & Game Comm’n, 42 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 1994) ............................................... 20 State v. Arthur, 261 P.2d 135 (Idaho 1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 937 (1954) ....................................... 20 State v. Buchanan, 978 P.2d 1070 (Wash. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1154 (2000) ..................................... 20 State v. Cutler, 708 P.2d 853 (Idaho 1985) .......................... 28 V Cases—Continued: Page State v. Tinno, 497 P.2d 1386 (Idaho 1972) ......................... 20 Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) ................................ 23 Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681 (1942) ........................... 20 United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986) ......................... 15 United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905) .................... 20 Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 (1896) ........................................................... 5, 9, 16, 17, 18, 22 Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658 (1979) .............................................................................. 12, 27 Constitution, treaties, statutes, and regulations: U.S. Const. Art. VI, Cl. 2 ...................................................... 28 Treaty Between the United States of America and the Crow Tribe of Indians, May 7, 1868, 15 Stat. 649 ............................................................................ 2 art. II, 15 Stat. 650 ...................................................... 3, 25 art. IV, 15 Stat. 650 .................................... 3, 10, 11, 12, 25 Treaty Between the United States of America and the Eastern Band of Shoshonees and the Bannack Tribe of Indians, July 3, 1868, 15 Stat. 673: art. IV, 15 Stat. 674 ........................................................... 5 art. IV, 15 Stat. 674-675 .............................................. 5, 16 Treaty of Fort Laramie, Sept. 17, 1851, 11 Stat. 749 ......... 2 Treaty of July 29, 1837, 7 Stat. 536 ...................................... 12 art. 5, 7 Stat. 537 .............................................................. 13 Act of May 11, 1858, ch. 31, 11 Stat. 285 .............................. 15 Act of July 25, 1868, ch. 235, 15 Stat. 178 ........................ 3, 14 Act of Mar. 3, 1873, ch. 321, 17 Stat. 626 ............................. 26 VI Statutes and regulations—Continued: Page Act of July 10, 1890, ch. 664, 26 Stat. 222 ........................ 3, 16 § 4, 26 Stat. 222-223 ........................................................... 3 § 12, 26 Stat. 224 ................................................................ 3 Act of Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 561, § 24, 26 Stat. 1103 .................... 4 16 U.S.C. 475 ............................................................................ 4 16 U.S.C. 528 ............................................................................ 4 43 U.S.C. 1732(b) ................................................................... 28 Proclamation No. 30, 29 Stat. 909 .......................................... 4 29 Stat. 910 ................................................................... 4, 27 36 C.F.R.: Section 251.50(c) .............................................................. 28 Section 261.8 .................................................................... 28 Section 261.10(d)(1) ......................................................... 28 Miscellaneous: Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 3d Sess. 1348 (1869) ................ 26 Institute for the Development of Indian Law, Proceedings of the Great Peace Commission of 1867-1868 (1975) ...............................................2, 3, 13, 14, 27 2 Charles J. Kappler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties (1904) ...................................................................... 2 U.S. Office of Indian Affairs, Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior for the Year 1873 (1874) ............................ 26 In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 17-532 CLAYVIN HERRERA, PETITIONER v. STATE OF WYOMING ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF WYOMING, SHERIDAN COUNTY BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES This case concerns the scope and continuing validity of a right reserved to the Crow Tribe of Indians by a treaty between that Tribe and the United States. The United States has a substantial interest in the proper interpretation of its treaties with Indian tribes, in light of both its status as a party to such treaties and its spe- cial relationship with the Indian signatories whose rights such treaties secure. At the Court’s invitation, the United States filed a brief as amicus curiae at the petition stage of this case. STATEMENT 1. Three centuries ago, the Crow Tribe of Indians (the Crow or the Tribe) migrated from Canada to what is now southern Montana and northern Wyoming. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 547 (1981); Pet. 4. “In the 19th century, warfare between the Crows and (1) 2 several other tribes led the tribes and the United States to sign the First Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851, in which the signatory tribes acknowledged various desig- nated lands as their respective territories.” Montana, 450 U.S. at 547-548; see Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851 Treaty), Sept. 17, 1851, 11 Stat. 749; 2 Charles J. Kap- pler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties 594-595 (1904) (Kappler). The 1851 Treaty “identified approximately 38.5 million acres as Crow territory.” Montana, 450 U.S. at 548. It also specified that the tribes did “not surren- der the privilege of hunting, fishing, or passing over any of the” designated lands. Kappler 595. By the 1860s, non-Indians were rapidly settling the lands that the 1851 Treaty had identified as Crow territory—laying out roads, taking possession of valua- ble mines, and scaring away game. Institute for the De- velopment of Indian Law, Proceedings of the Great Peace Commission of 1867-1868, at 86-88, 90 (1975) (Proceedings). In 1867, representatives of the United States, including the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, approached the Crow with a proposal to “set apart a tract of your country as a home for yourselves and chil- dren forever, upon which your great Father will not permit the white man to trespass.” Id. at 86. As for “the rest” of the Crow’s territory, the United States proposed to “buy * * * the right to use and settle [it],” while “leaving to” the Crow “the right to hunt upon it as long as the game lasts.” Ibid.; see id. at 90 (“You will still be free to hunt as you are now.”). The United States and the Tribe subsequently signed the Second Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868. Treaty Between the United States of America and the Crow Tribe of Indians (1868 Treaty), May 7, 1868, 15 Stat. 3 649; see Montana, 450 U.S. at 548. That treaty estab- lished in present-day Montana “a Crow Reservation of roughly 8 million acres,” Montana, 450 U.S. at 548, “for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the [Crow],” 1868 Treaty, art. II, 15 Stat. 650. In exchange, the Tribe agreed to cede the rest of its lands, including its lands in present-day Wyoming, to the United States. Ibid. The 1868 Treaty expressly provided, however, that the Tribe would retain certain rights in those ceded lands. In particular, Article IV specified that the Crow “shall have the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon, and as long as peace subsists among the whites and Indi- ans on the borders of the hunting districts.” 15 Stat. 650. 2. Two months after the 1868 Treaty was signed, Congress passed a statute creating a temporary gov- ernment for the Territory of Wyoming. Act of July 25, 1868 (1868 Act), ch. 235, 15 Stat. 178. That statute pro- vided that “nothing in this act shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining to the Indians in said Territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians.” Ibid. In 1890, Congress passed an Act admitting Wyoming to the Union “on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.” Act of July 10, 1890, ch. 664, 26 Stat. 222. Under the terms of that Act, the United States granted certain public lands to Wyoming, e.g., § 4, 26 Stat. 222-223, while other lands within the new State’s boundaries remained public lands of the United States, see § 12, 26 Stat. 224. The statehood Act made no ref- erence to the Crow’s rights under the 1868 Treaty. 3. Shortly after Wyoming’s admission to the Union, Congress enacted a statute authorizing the President to 4 “set apart and reserve” tracts of public lands as forest reservations. Act of Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 561, § 24, 26 Stat. 1103. Exercising that authority in 1897, President Cleve- land issued a proclamation “reserv[ing] from entry or settlement and set[ting] apart as a Public Reservation” certain public lands bearing forests in northern Wyoming. Proclamation No. 30 (1897 Proclamation), 29 Stat. 909; see id. at 910 (“Warning is hereby expressly given to all persons not to enter or make settlement upon the tract of land reserved by this proclamation.”). The public res- ervation encompassed lands ceded by the Tribe in 1868 and adjacent to the Crow Reservation across the border in Montana. Pet. 7; J.A. 234. The lands reserved by the 1897 Proclamation are known today as the Bighorn National Forest. Pet. Br. 10 & n.5. As part of the National Forest System, those lands are to be administered “for the purpose of secur- ing favorable conditions of water flows” and “furnish[ing] a continuous supply of timber.” 16 U.S.C. 475. They also are to “be administered for outdoor recreation, range, * * * and wildlife and fish purposes.” 16 U.S.C. 528. 4. In 1989, a member of the Crow Tribe shot and killed an elk in the Bighorn National Forest. Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis, 73 F.3d 982, 985 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1221 (1996). After the State of Wyoming prosecuted the tribal member for hunting without a state license, ibid., the Tribe sued Wyoming state officials in federal district court in Wyoming, seek- ing a declaratory judgment that the Tribe and its mem- bers have a right under the 1868 Treaty to hunt on un- occupied lands of the United States, including National Forest lands, id. at 986. The district court granted summary judgment to the state officials. Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis,