When a Crow hunter crossed from the Crow Reservation into Bighorn National Forest, the state of Wyoming arrested him for illegal hunting. The 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, however, guarantees to the Crow Tribe the use of their traditional homeland to hunt, fish, and gather, as long as those lands remained unoccupied.
Did Wyoming’s admission to the Union or the establishment of Bighorn National Forest abrogate the Fort Laramie Treaty? Is a national forest “unoccupied” land? Troy Eid of Greenberg Traurig, LLP explains the complexities of Indian treaty rights in Herrera v. Wyoming. Oral argument is January 8, 2019.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker.
Learn more about Troy Eid:
https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/e/eid-troy-a
Related Links & Differing Views:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs: “Frequently Asked Questions”
https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions
National Conference of State Legislatures: “Supreme Court to Decide Off-Reservation Hunting Case”
http://www.ncsl.org/blog/2018/09/11/supreme-court-to-decide-off-reservation-hunting-case.aspx
Ecology Law Quarterly: “Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians”
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1636&context=elq
Buffalo Field Campaign: “1868 Fort Laramie Treaty”
http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/legal/tribalbriefing/1868fortlaramie.html
