I would note that Herrera has not won outright yet.

From the Opinion of the Court:

Second, the state trial court decided that Wyoming could regulate the exercise of the 1868 Treaty right “in the interest of conservation.” Nos. CT–2015–2687, CT–2015–2688, App. to Pet. for Cert. 39–41; see Antoine, 420 U. S., at 207. The appellate court did not reach this issue. No. 2016–242, App. to Pet. for Cert. 14, n. 3. On remand, the State may press its arguments as to why the application of state conservation regulations to Crow Tribe members exercising the 1868 Treaty right is necessary for conservation. We do not pass on the viability of those arguments today.

I think Wyoming can sustain its conservation arguments, which are an issue separate from the Treaty arguments, which would still keep Herrera’s conviction intact.

It is hard to believe that the Supreme Court would recognize that Native Americans have a right to indiscriminately slaughter big game for trophies without limit or regulation.