## Facts

- Several Ojibwe (Chippewa) tribes reserved treaty rights to hunt in a large northern Wisconsin “ceded territory” after 19th-century land cessions.
- Deer hunting, including night hunting, was historically important to tribal subsistence and religious and cultural practices.
- Wisconsin prohibited off-reservation night deer hunting; a 1991 federal judgment upheld enforcement of that prohibition against tribal members largely on public-safety grounds.
- Decades later, the tribes moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) for relief from the 1991 judgment, asserting that continued enforcement was no longer equitable due to changed circumstances.
- The tribes presented evidence that Wisconsin had run its own night deer-shooting program (by employees/contractors) in similar areas without the feared accident history and during a period of sharply reduced hunting-accident rates.
- The tribes proposed strict off-reservation night-hunting regulations (training, permits, supervision) and cited a strong safety record for regulated night hunting on reservations.
- The tribes also relied on experience in nearby states permitting tribal night hunting under established safety programs without serious safety problems.
- The district court denied Rule 60(b)(5) relief, accepting a distinction between state night shooting (acceptable risk) and tribal night hunting (unacceptable risk).
- The tribes appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether materially changed factual circumstances regarding night-hunting safety made continued prospective enforcement of the 1991 judgment inequitable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5).
2. Whether the district court clearly erred in concluding that state employee/contractor night shooting was materially less dangerous than regulated tribal night hunting, justifying a categorical ban.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the denial of Rule 60(b)(5) relief and remanded.
- The court held that the record no longer supported a blanket prohibition on tribal off-reservation night deer hunting based on the original safety rationale.
- The court found no adequate evidentiary basis for treating state night shooting as acceptable while deeming regulated tribal night hunting too dangerous.
- The court emphasized that relief did not establish an unfettered tribal right to night hunt; it required reconsideration and possible modification of the prior judgment consistent with current evidence and appropriate regulation.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 60(b)(5) permits relief from a judgment with prospective effect when continued enforcement is no longer equitable due to material changes in factual circumstances.
- A court assessing prospective equitable enforcement must evaluate whether the original factual premises for injunctive-style restrictions remain supported by current evidence.
- Treaty-reserved hunting rights may be subject to regulation, but categorical restrictions must be justified by a demonstrated need (including credible, current public-safety evidence) and may require tailoring rather than blanket bans.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that substantial new evidence about night-hunting safety undermined the factual basis for a decades-old judgment upholding Wisconsin’s categorical off-reservation night deer-hunting ban against treaty-right tribal members, warranting Rule 60(b)(5) relief and remand for reconsideration and potential tailored regulation.


Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wis. v. Wisconsin, 769 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 2014)