Page:Herrera v. Wyoming, 587 U. S. (2019) (slip opinion).pdf/41

16 here. Not only did the Tribe have an opportunity in Repsis to litigate the subject of the alternative ground, it actually did so.

Finally, regardless of whether alternative grounds always have preclusive effect, it is sufficient to say that, at least in a declaratory judgment action, each conclusion provides an independent basis for preclusion. “Since the very purpose of declaratory relief is to achieve a final and reliable determination of legal issues, there should be no quibbling about the necessity principle. Every issue that the parties have litigated and that the court has undertaken to resolve is necessary to the judgment, and should be precluded.” 18 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure §4421, at 630; see Henglein v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 260 F. 3d 201, 212 (CA3 2001). Because Repsis was a declaratory judgment action aimed at settling the Tribe’s hunting rights, that principle suffices to bind Herrera to Repsis’s resolution of the occupied-land issue.

Herrera and the United States offer a variety of other arguments to avoid the preclusive effect of Repsis, but all