I’ve noticed that some have noted that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Roberts have sided with liberals sometimes.
I think this story, and others, are noting that the bloc of liberals have gotten some from the conservative side to join them sometimes, without regard to the specifics of the case at hand. They are just noting the vote breakdown.
I certainly have no expertise in constitutional law, relating to treaties with Indians when Wyoming was a territory, vs. when Wyoming became a state.
So just applying reasoning from principles of corporate law....the fact that the counterparty sort of changes its entity form doesn’t abrogate a contract.
Wyoming can’t get out of a contract (treaty) by breaking off from a territory and becoming a state. That’s preposterous.
(And shame on the liberals if they see this as a race case).
Also, it’s important that we recall the interpretive principle that a party who drafts the treaty is not going to get the benefit of the doubt. That’s important. And while I don’t know anything about this particular treaty, my guess would be that the US drafted it, and gave it to the Indians who naively thought that they would have hunting rights in the Wyoming territory forever, because that is what was on the paper......