throbber
Appellate Case: 21-8050 Document: 010110582594 Date Filed: 09/27/2021 Page: 1
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket