`
`No. 21-8050
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, et al.
`
`Appellants,
`
`v.
`
`Chuck REPSIS, et al.,
`
`Appellees.
`
`
`Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming,
`Case No. 1:92-cv-01002-ABJ (Hon. Alan B. Johnson)
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S/APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`
`Daniel D. Lewerenz
`NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
`1514 P St NW, Suite D
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: (202) 785-4166
`Fax: (202) 822-0068
`lewerenz@narf.org
`
`Wesley J. Furlong
`NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
`745 W. 4th Ave., Suite 502
`Anchorage, AK 99501
`Ph. (907) 276-0680
`Fax (907) 276-2466
`wfurlong@narf.org
`
`Counsel for Appellants
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 2
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Appellant, the Crow Tribe of Indians, is a Federally recognized
`
`
`
`Indian Tribe. Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible to Receive
`
`Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 86 Fed. Reg.
`
`7554, 7555 (Jan. 29, 2021).
`
` Because Appellant is neither a
`
`“nongovernmental corporation,” Fed. R. App. P. 26.1, nor “formed as a
`
`limited liability company (LLC) partnership,” 10th Cir. R. 26.1(A), no
`
`corporate disclosure statement is required.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 3
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT........................................... i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................... v
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES .................................................... xi
`
`GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................... xii
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ......................................................... 4
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................................... 5
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................ 6
`
`A. The Treaties .......................................................................... 6
`
`B. The Repsis Litigation ............................................................ 7
`
`C. The Herrera Litigation ........................................................ 10
`
`D. The Present Action .............................................................. 14
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................... 16
`
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 18
`
`The District Court erred in holding that it lacked authority
`to decide the Crow Tribe’s Rule 60 motion. .................................. 18
`
`A. The District Court erred by failing to follow Standard Oil. . 20
`
`
`ii
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 4
`
`B. The Crow Tribe’s Rule 60(b) motion meets all of Standard
`Oil’s substantive requirements. .......................................... 24
`
`
`C.
`
`In the alternative, if this Court’s mandate bars the District
`Court from deciding the Crow Tribe’s Rule 60 motion,
`this Court may recall its mandate and remand to the
`District Court. ..................................................................... 26
`
`If this Court does not remand to the District Court, then it
`should grant the Crow Tribe’s Rule 60 motion. ............................ 28
`
`A. This Court should vacate its mandate with respect to the
`status of the Bighorn National Forest, which cannot be
`reconciled with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in
`Herrera. .............................................................................. 29
`
`II.
`
`
`B. This Court should vacate or modify any holding of
`conservation necessity because, as a result of changed
`factual circumstances, “applying it prospectively is no longer
`equitable.” ........................................................................... 32
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 44
`
`REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ................................................... 46
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................... 48
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................................................. 49
`
`ATTACHMENTS
`
`Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis,
`
`Order on Mots. Summ. J. (Dkt. #60)
`
`Memorandum Opinion on Mots. Summ. J. (Dkt. #61)
`
`10th Circuit Opinion (Doc. #01019280386)
`
`Order Denying Rule 60(b) Mot. (Dkt. 84)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 5
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Agostini v. Felton,
`
`521 U.S. 203 (1997) ........................................................................ 33
`
`Antoine v. Washington,
`
`420 U.S. 194 (1975) ................................................................... 34-35
`
`Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc.,
`
`98 F.3d 572 (10th Cir. 1996) ............................................... 29-30, 32
`
`Coleman v. Turpen,
`
`827 F.2d 667 (10th Cir. 1987) .................................................. 26, 27
`
`Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.,
`
`496 U.S. 384 (1990) ........................................................................ 20
`
`Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis,
`
`866 F. Supp. 520 (D. Wyo. 1994) ........................ 1n.1, 5n.3, 7-8, 9n.5
`
`Pl.’s Mot. Partial Relief from J. (Dkt. #69) ................................ 3, 14
`
`Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Partial Relief from J.
`
` (Dkt. #70) .......................................................................... 15, 24, 25
`
`Order on State’s Request for Post-Remand Issue Preclusion,
`
` Wyoming v. Herrera, Case No. CT 2014-2687; 2688 (Wyo.
`
` Cir. Ct. 4th Jud. Dist., June 11, 2020)
`
` (Dkt. No. 70-1) ............................................ 2, 13-14, 29-30 n.10, 38
`
`Pl.’s Mem. Opp. Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. (Dkt. #70-3) ....................... 40
`
`Pl.’s Exh. 4: Application for License for a Major
`
` Unconstructed Project, FERC No. 10725.000 (Dry Fork
`
` Energy Storage Project) submitted by Little Horn Energy,
`
` Wyoming, Inc., May 1992) (Dkt. #70-4) ....................................... 40
`
`Hr’g Tr. (Dkt. #83) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Order on Relief from J. (Dkt. #84) ........................ 4, 5, 14-16, 18, 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 6
`
`Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis,
`
`73 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 1995)
`
` .................. xi, 1-2, 5n.3, 8-10 & 10n.5, 24-25, 29 n.10, 30, 34-36, 46
`
`Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis,
`
`517 U.S. 1221 (1996) ........................................................................ 9
`
`Dep’t of Game of Wash. v. Puyallup Tribe,
`
`414 U.S. 44 (1973) ................................................................... 39, 42
`
`DeWeerth v. Baldinger,
`
`38 F.3d 1266 (2d Cir. 1994) ............................................................ 22
`
`Dowdell by Dowdell v. Bd. of Educ. of Oklahoma City Sch., Indep. Dist.
`No. 89, 8 F.3d 1501(10th Cir. 1993) ............................................... 37
`
`
`Esposito v. United States,
`
`368 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2004) ................................................. 19-20
`
`FDIC v. United Pac. Ins. Co.,
`
`152 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 1998) .............................. 4-5, 18-19, 20, 22
`
`Gokool v. Oklahoma City Univ.,
`
`770 Fed. Appx. 894 (10th Cir. 2019) .............................................. 28
`
`Hagen v. Utah,
`
`510 U.S. 399 (1994) ........................................................................ 26
`
`Hernandez v. Results Staffing, Inc.,
`
`907 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2018) .......................................................... 22
`
`Herrera v. Wyoming,
`
`139 S. Ct. 1686 (2019)
`
` ................................. 1, 10, 11-13 & 13nn.6-7, 24, 31-32, 36 n.12, 46
`
`Br. for Pet., 139 S. Ct. 1686 (2019) (No. 17-532),
`
` 2018 WL 4293381 (Sept. 4, 2018) ................................................ 10
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 7
`
`Horne v. Flores,
`
`557 U.S. 443 (2009) ................................ 31, 32-33 & n.11, 37-38, 42
`
`Jackson v. Los Lunas Cmty. Program,
`
`880 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2018) .......................................... 28, 33, 42
`
`James Barlow Family Ltd. P’ship v. David M. Munson, Inc.,
`
`132 F.3d 1316 (10th Cir. 1997) ...................................................... 26
`
`Kodekey Elect. v. Mechanex Corp.,
`
`500 F.2d 110 (10th Cir. 1974) .............................................. 3, 16, 24
`
`Lapiczak v. Zaist,
`
`54 F.R.D. 546 (D. Vt. 1972) ...................................................... 16, 23
`
`Logan v. Burgers Ozark Country Cured Hams Inc.,
`
`64 Fed. App’x 416 (5th Cir. unpub. 2003) ................................ 19 n.8
`
`LSLJ P’ship v. Frito-Lay, Inc.,
`
`920 F.2d 476 (7th Cir. 1990) .................................................... 19 n.8
`
`Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Trust,
`
`994 F.2d 716 (10th Cir. 1993) ........................................................ 20
`
`Manzanares v. City of Albuquerque,
`
`628 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2010) .......................................... 29, 32, 43
`
`Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians,
`
`526 U.S. 172 (1999) ........................................................................ 11
`
`Moore v. Harjo,
`
`144 F.2d 318 (10th Cir. 1944) ........................................................ 34
`
`Republic of Ecuador v. For Issuance of Subpoena under 28 U.S.C. §
`1782(a), 735 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2013) ................................... 19-20
`
`
`Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail,
`
`502 U.S. 367 (1992) ........................................................................ 33
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 8
`
`Security Mut. Cas. Co. v. Century Cas. Co.,
`
`612 F.2d 1062 (10th Cir. 1980) ................................................. 33-34
`
`Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Idaho Fish & Game Comm’n,
`
`42 F.3d 1278, 1283 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................ 38
`Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`
`774 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2014) .............................................. 29 n.10
`
`Standard Oil Co. of Calif. v. United States,
`
`429 U.S. 17 (1976) .......................................... 3, 15, 16-17, 20-26, 28
`
`State Bank v. Gledhill (In re Gledhill),
`
`76 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 1996) ............................................ 29, 32, 43
`
`Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia,
`
`841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988)....................................................... 37
`
`United States v. Michigan,
`
`653 F.2d 277 (6th Cir. 1981) ..................................................... 39-40
`
`United States v. Oregon,
`
`718 F.2d 299 (9th Cir. 1983) ..................................................... 39-40
`
`United States v. Oregon,
`
`769 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir. 1985) ........................................ 38-39, 42-43
`
`United States v. Sandoval,
`
`29 F.3d 537 (10th Cir. 1994) ..................................................... 35-36
`
`United States v. Spallone,
`
`399 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2005) ............................................................ 34
`
`Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. Utah,
`
`114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1997) ................................................. 26-27
`
`Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah,
`
`773 F.2d 1087 (10th Cir. 1985) ...................................................... 26
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 9
`
`Ward v. Race Horse,
`
`163 U.S. 504 (1896) .......................................................................... 8
`
`Wilkin v. Sunbeam Corp.,
`
`402 F.2d 165 (10th Cir. 1968) ............................ 3, 16, 20, 21, 23, 25
`
`Wyoming v. Herrera,
`
`Order on State’s Request for Post-Remand Issue Preclusion,
`
`Case No. CT 2014-2687; 2688 (Wyo. Cir. Ct. 4th Jud. Dist.,
`
`June 11, 2020) .............................................. 2, 13-14, 29-30 n.10, 38
`
`Yapp v. Excel Corp.,
`
`186 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 1999) ........................................... 29-30, 32
`
`
`CONSTITUTIONS
`
`U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2 ............................................................... 7, 31, 46
`
`
`TREATIES
`
`Treaty Between the United States of America and the Crow Tribe of
`Indians, May 7, 1868, 15 Stat. 650 ......................................... 1,7, 46
`
`
`Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851, 11 Stat. 749 (1851) and 2
`Charles Kappler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties (1904) ........ 6-7
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1291 ........................................................................................ 5
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................ 4
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1362 ........................................................................................ 4
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) .................................................................................... 4
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 10
`
`RULES
`
`10th Cir. R. 26.1(A) .................................................................................... i
`
`10th Cir. R. 28.2(C)(3) .............................................................................. xi
`
`10th Cir. R. 32(B) .................................................................................... 48
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) .......................................................................... 5
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 .................................................................................... i
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) ........................................................................... 48
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) ........................................................................... 48
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 32(f) ................................................................................ 48
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(i) ................................................................... 48
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 32(g) ................................................................................ 48
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ................................................................................. 36
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) .................................. 5, 14, 18, 23, 25, 32 n.11, 37
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) .................................................................. 5, 14, 29
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Indian Entities Recognized By and Eligible to Receive Services from the
`United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 86 Fed. Reg. 7554 (Jan.
`29, 2021) ............................................................................................ i
`
`
`Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Elk Hunting,
`https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Hunting/Hunt-Planner/Elk-Hunting/Elk-Map
` ................................................................................................ 41 n.13
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 11
`
`Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Sheridan Region Job Completion
`Report 42 (2019),
`https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Hunting/JCRS/S
`N-Region-JCRs-2019-Final.pdf ................................................. 41-42
`
`
`Wyoming Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
`Comprehensive Management System Annual Report (2020),
`https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/About%20Us/Com
`mission/WGFD_ANNUALREPORT_2020.pdf ................... 40-41, 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 12
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`
`
`The Crow Tribe of Indians is not aware of any currently pending
`
`cases raising the same or similar issues. The following case is provided
`
`as a prior appeal under 10th Cir. R. 28.2(C)(3):
`
`Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis, 73 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 1995)
`
`
`
`xi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 13
`
`GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`1868 Treaty
`
`1851 Treaty
`
`2020 Preclusion
`Order
`
`Crow Tribe or
`Appellant
`State or
`Appellees
`WGFD 2020
`Annual Report
`
`Treaty Between the United States of America and
`the Crow Tribe of Indians, May 7, 1868, 15 Stat.
`650
`
`Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851, 11
`Stat. 749 (1851) and 2 Charles Kappler, Indian
`Affairs: Laws and Treaties (1904)
`
`Order on State’s Request for Post-Remand Issue
`Preclusion, Wyoming v. Herrera, Case No. CT
`2014-2687 (Wyo. Cir. Ct. 4th Jud. Dist., June 11,
`2020)
`
`Crow Tribe of Indians
`
`State of Wyoming and its agents
`
`Wyoming Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish
`and Wildlife Service Comprehensive Management
`System Annual Report (2020),
`https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Ab
`out%20Us/Commission/WGFD_ANNUALREPORT
`_2020.pdf
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 14
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`In 1868, the Crow Tribe of Indians (“Crow Tribe” or “Appellant”)
`
`ceded more than 30 million acres of territory to the United States.
`
`Herrera v. Wyoming, 139 S. Ct. 1686, 1692 (2019) (citing Treaty Between
`
`the United States of America and the Crow Tribe of Indians, May 7, 1868,
`
`15 Stat. 650 (“1868 Treaty”)). Among the conditions of that cession was
`
`that Crow Tribe members would retain certain off-reservation hunting
`
`rights. Id. at 1692-93. Just two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court
`
`affirmed both that the Crow Tribe’s off-reservation hunting right has not
`
`been extinguished, and that Crow Tribe members can exercise that right
`
`in the Bighorn National Forest. See generally id.
`
`
`
`This appeal concerns whether a 26-year-old decision of this Court
`
`can negate the Supreme Court’s decision in Herrera. In Crow Tribe of
`
`Indians v. Repsis, 73 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 1995) (“Repsis II”) (Aplt. App’x
`
`at A.III.17-40), this Court made two key holdings. First, affirming the
`
`decision and the reasoning of the District Court,1 this Court held that the
`
`Crow Tribe’s off-reservation treaty hunting right was extinguished by
`
`
`1 Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis, 866 F. Supp. 520, 522-24 (D. Wyo.
`1994) (“Repsis I”) (Aplt. App’x at A.II.7-13).
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 15
`
`Wyoming’s statehood. Repsis II, 73 F.3d at 987-93 (Aplt. App’x at
`
`A.III.23-35). Second, and in the alternative, this Court held that even if
`
`the Crow Tribe’s off-reservation treaty hunting right had survived, it
`
`could not be exercised in the Bighorn National Forest. Id. at 993 (Aplt.
`
`App’x at A.III.37-38). Those decisions cannot be reconciled with Herrera.
`
`This Court also stated, without identifying its statement as an
`
`alternative holding, that Wyoming’s hunting laws were “reasonable and
`
`necessary for conservation.” Repsis II, 73 F.3d at 993 (Aplt. App’x at
`
`A.III.37). But whatever necessity this Court saw then does not exist now,
`
`with elk populations far exceeding State management goals, and
`
`Wyoming game officials struggling to keep them in check. Changed law
`
`and changed facts leave no part of the Repsis II judgment viable today.
`
`
`
`Nevertheless, Wyoming continues to invoke this Court’s decision to
`
`justify prosecution of Crow Tribe treaty hunters. Order on State’s
`
`Request for Post-Remand Issue Preclusion at 9-32, Wyoming v. Herrera,
`
`Case No. CT 2014-2687; 2688 (Wyo. Cir. Ct. 4th Jud. Dist., June 11, 2020)
`
`(the “2020 Preclusion Order”) (Aplt. App’x A.VI.83-106). So the Crow
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 16
`
`Tribe moved in the District Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 60(b), for relief from the Repsis judgments. Pl.’s Mot. Partial
`
`Relief from J. (Aplt’s App’x at A.IV.41-43.) The District Court was the
`
`appropriate place to make such a motion. For decades it has been black
`
`letter law that appellate leave is not required for a Rule 60 motion, even
`
`when the judgment from which relief was sought has been affirmed by a
`
`higher court. Standard Oil Co. of Calif. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17
`
`(1976). In fact, this Court eschewed the appellate-leave rule even before
`
`Standard Oil eliminated that rule nationwide. See Kodekey Elect. v.
`
`Mechanex Corp., 500 F.2d 110, 113 (10th Cir. 1974); Wilkin v. Sunbeam
`
`Corp., 402 F.2d 165, 166 (10th Cir. 1968) (per curiam). The District
`
`Court, however, denied the motion in relevant part because it mistakenly
`
`believed that it lacked authority to grant relief from its judgment when
`
`that judgment was affirmed on alternative grounds by this Court. Order
`
`on Relief from Judgment at 17-20 (“Order”) (Aplt. App’x at A.IX.188-91).
`
`
`
`This Court should reverse and remand to the District Court for
`
`consideration of the Crow Tribe’s Rule 60 motion. In the alternative, if
`
`the District Court does lack authority to grant relief from this Court’s
`
`decision, or simply in the interest of judicial economy, this Court should
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 17
`
`itself grant the Crow Tribe’s motion. This Court’s alternative holding
`
`concerning the Bighorn National Forest is incompatible with the
`
`Supreme Court’s holding in Herrera. In addition, to the extent that this
`
`Court authorized Wyoming’s enforcement of its hunting regulations
`
`against Crow Tribe treaty hunters in 1995, the “necessity” that
`
`warranted such authority no longer exists today, as elk populations far
`
`exceed the State’s own management goals.
`
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`Jurisdiction was proper in the U.S. District Court for the District of
`
`Wyoming (1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the status of an Indian
`
`treaty right is a Federal question; (2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1362, as a
`
`“civil action[], brought by an[] Indian tribe or band with a governing body
`
`duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior, wherein the matter in
`
`controversy arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
`
`States”; and (3) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), as a plea for declaratory
`
`relief. The District Court entered its Order denying the Crow Tribe’s
`
`Rule 60 motion, which was a final order disposing of all parties’ claims,
`
`on July 1, 2021. See generally Order (Aplt. App’x at A.IX.172-91). This
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 18
`
`Court has jurisdiction over the Crow Tribe’s appeal of that Order
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See FDIC v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 152 F.3d
`
`1266, 1268 (10th Cir. 1998). Appellant timely noticed its appeal on July
`
`26, 2021. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`
`For purposes of this Appeal, the Crow Tribe sought relief from
`
`judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and (6),
`
`related to two aspects of this Court’s opinion in Repsis II.2 The District
`
`Court denied the motion, without considering the merits, because it
`
`believed it lacked authority to grant such relief. Order at 17-20 (Aplt.
`
`App’x at A.IX.188-91).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Appellants also sought relief from the District Court’s holding that the
`Crow Tribe’s treaty hunting right was extinguished by Wyoming’s
`statehood. See Repsis I, 866 F. Supp. at 522-24 (Aplt. App’x at A.II.7-
`13), aff’d Repsis II, 73 F.3d at 987-93 (Aplt. App’x at A.III.23-35). The
`District Court denied that aspect of the Crow Tribe’s motion on the
`merits, while also observing that that aspect of the judgment had been
`rendered unenforceable. Order at 15-16 (Aplt. App’x at A.IX.186-87).
`The Crow Tribe does not appeal that aspect of the District Court’s
`Order.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 19
`
`
`
`The issues presented are:
`
`1. Did the District Court err in holding (1) that it lacked
`
`authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to grant
`
`relief from this Court’s alternative holding(s), and (2) that
`
`the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Standard Oil does not
`
`apply when a party seeks relief from a judgment that was
`
`reached in the alternative by a higher court? And,
`
`2. Should this Court grant Appellant’s Rule 60 motion, either
`
`because the District Court lacks authority to do so, or in
`
`the interest of judicial economy?
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`A. The Treaties
`
`
`This case arises from two treaties between the Crow Tribe and the
`
`
`
`United States, and from subsequent actions the State of Wyoming and
`
`its agents (“State” or “Appellees”) have taken in derogation of those
`
`treaties. The first treaty defined the Crow Tribe’s traditional hunting
`
`areas. Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, Etc., 1851, 11 Stat. 749 (1851)
`
`and 2 Charles Kappler, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties 594 (1904) (the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 20
`
`“1851 Treaty”). The second reserved to the Crow Tribe, among other
`
`things, “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 Indians on the borders of the hunting districts.” 1868
`
`Treaty at art. IV. These treaties, just like the Constitution itself and
`
`Federal statutes, are “the supreme Law of the Land,” U.S. CONST. art. VI,
`
`cl. 2.
`
`B. The Repsis Litigation
`
`
`The Crow Tribe and Crow Tribe member Thomas L. Ten Bear
`
`
`
`(together “Plaintiffs”), initiated this action in 1992, seeking declaratory
`
`judgment that the Crow Tribe’s off-reservation treaty hunting right had
`
`not been extinguished, and injunctive relief barring Defendants3 from
`
`enforcing Wyoming hunting and fishing laws and regulations in
`
`contravention of those treaty rights. Repsis I, 866 F. Supp. at 521 (Aplt.
`
`App’x at A.II.3).
`
`
`
`On cross motions for summary judgment, the District Court found
`
`in favor of Defendants and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims. See generally id.
`
`
`3 Defendants are various Wyoming State officials authorized to enforce
`the State’s hunting regulations.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 21
`
`(Aplt. App’x at A.II.3-16). The District Court found that the factual and
`
`legal issues in Repsis were identical to those in Ward v. Race Horse, 163
`
`U.S. 504 (1896). Repsis I, 866 F. Supp. at 522 & n.5 (Aplt. App’x at A.II.7-
`
`8, 8 n.5). It then held that Race Horse compelled a finding that the Crow
`
`Tribe’s off-reservation treaty hunting right had been extinguished upon
`
`Wyoming’s statehood. Id. at 522-24 (Aplt. App’x at A.II.7-13).
`
`Defendants made two alternative arguments: first, that the Bighorn
`
`National Forest was no longer “unoccupied lands” upon which the Crow
`
`Tribe could exercise its off-reservation treaty hunting right because
`
`“federal lands are occupied”; and second, that conservation necessity
`
`justified Wyoming’s regulation of treaty hunting. Id. at 522 (Aplt. App’x
`
`at A.II.6). The District Court, however, did not reach those issues, and
`
`instead entered judgment based only upon its finding that the Crow
`
`Tribe’s treaty right had been extinguished. See generally id. (Aplt. App’x
`
`at A.II.3-16).
`
`
`
`The Crow Tribe appealed, and this Court affirmed. Repsis II, 73
`
`F.3d 982 (Aplt. App’x at A.III.17-40). Like the District Court, this Court
`
`found Race Horse to be dispositive, and held that the Crow Tribe’s off-
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 22
`
`reservation treaty hunting right had been extinguished upon Wyoming’s
`
`statehood. Id. at 987-93 (Aplt. App’x at A.III.23-35).
`
`
`
`This appeal concerns two other aspects of this Court’s Repsis II
`
`opinion. First, this Court articulated “an alternative basis for
`
`affirmance”: that even if the off-reservation treaty hunting right survived
`
`Wyoming’s statehood, the Crow Tribe could not exercise that right in the
`
`Bighorn National Forest because “the creation of the Big Horn [sic]
`
`National Forest resulted in the ‘occupation’ of the land.” Id. at 993 (Aplt.
`
`App’x at A.III.38). Second, in a sentence fragment appended to its
`
`extinguishment holding, but not identified as an alternative holding, this
`
`Court stated that even if the off-reservation treaty hunting right survived
`
`Wyoming’s statehood, “there is ample evidence in the record to support
`
`the State’s contention that its regulations were reasonable and necessary
`
`for conservation.” Id. at 993 (citation to record omitted) (Aplt. App’x at
`
`A.III.37).4 The Supreme Court denied certiorari. Crow Tribe of Indians
`
`v. Repsis, 517 U.S. 1221 (1996).
`
`
`4 In addition to dismissing Plaintiffs’ treaty claims, the District Court
`also dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims under the Unlawful Inclosures Act,
`Repsis I, 866 F. Supp. at 524-25 (Aplt. App’x at A.II.15-16); and this
`Court affirmed. Repsis II, 73 F.3d at 993-94 (Aplt. App’x at A.III.38-
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 23
`
`C. The Herrera Litigation
`
`
`In 2014, Clayvin Herrera was among a group of Crow Tribe
`
`
`
`members hunting elk within the boundaries of the Crow Reservation
`
`when they crossed into Wyoming and the Bighorn National Forest.
`
`Herrera, 139 U.S. at 1693. While there, Mr. Herrera and other members
`
`of his hunting party shot three bull elk and returned to the Reservation
`
`with the meat. Id. Mr. Herrera subsequently was charged with, and
`
`tried for, taking elk out of season and with being an accessory to the
`
`same. Id.
`
`
`
`At trial, Mr. Herrera was not permitted to assert his treaty right as
`
`a defense, and he was convicted on both counts. Id. The State court
`
`imposed a one-year jail sentence, which it suspended; ordered Mr.
`
`Herrera to pay more than $8,000 in fines and court costs; and suspended
`
`his hunting privileges in Wyoming for three years. Id.; see also Br. for
`
`Pet. at 15, Herrera v. Wyoming, 139 S. Ct. 1686 (2019) (No. 17-532), 2018
`
`WL 4293381 at *15 (Sept. 4, 2018).
`
`
`39). The Crow Tribe’s Rule 60 Motion does not seek to disturb that
`portion of the judgment.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 24
`
`
`
`Mr. Herrera appealed, but the State appellate court affirmed both
`
`his conviction and his sentence. Herrera, 139 S. Ct. at 1694. First, it
`
`held sua sponte that this Court’s Repsis II decision “merited issue-
`
`preclusive effect against Herrera because he is a member of the Crow
`
`Tribe, and the Tribe had litigated the Repsis suit on behalf of itself and
`
`its members. Herrera, in other words, was not allowed to relitigate the
`
`validity of the treaty right in his own case.” Herrera, 139 S. Ct. at 1694
`
`(citations to the record omitted). The State appellate court also held, in
`
`the alternative and following Repsis II, that even if the Crow Tribe’s off-
`
`reservation treaty hunting right survived, Mr. Herrera could not exercise
`
`it in the Bighorn National Forest because “the national forest became
`
`categorically ‘occupied’ when it was created.” Herrera, 139 S. Ct. at 1694.
`
`The Wyoming Supreme Court denied a petition for review. Id.
`
`
`
`The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Id. at 1703.
`
`First, noting that Race Horse had articulated two different reasons why
`
`Wyoming’s