I agree with Gorsuch in this case.
In fact, I am surprised it was not 9-0 for the Indians.
Becoming a state should not nullify their agreement.
We had a long thread on this yesterday. I don’t think the change in Wyoming from territory to state was really the core of the Federal government’s argument in this case. Their bigger argument was that the Fort Laramie Treaty covered three separate territories, and there’s a legitimate question about whether that treaty would allow members of a tribe whose reservation was entirely within the borders of one territory (Montana) to hunt without any restrictions in another territory (Wyoming) after it became a state.
Was wondering the same thing, shoulda been 9-0 for the gentleman.
I thought exactly the same thing: 9-0 would have been the ONLY correct decision if we believe that treaty law is pre-eminent in the country