Checkerboard Litigation History: AWHC's Legal Battle for Wild Horses

July 13, 2024

Suzanne Roy

Checkerboard Litigation History

Following is a history of litigation filed on behalf of American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Campaign) and co-plaintiffs by Eubanks and Associates and Meyer Glitzenstein to prevent the BLM from eradicating the iconic wild horse herd of the Wyoming Checkerboard and eliminating 1 million acres of federally-designated habitat for wild horses in the state. Co-plaintiffs in the pending cases include the Animal Welfare Institute, Western Watersheds Project, wildlife photographers Carol Walker and Kimerlee Curyl, and Casper College sociology professor and Wyoming Mustang Institute Co-founder Chad Hanson.

Background Information

Learn more about the Wyoming Checkerboard: What You Need to Know

Must-Read Series in The Atlantic

Read the series by journalist Andrew Cohen: Wild Horses

2011

Lawsuit Against Sterilization in White Mountain HMA

AWHC files a lawsuit and a complaint with the White House Council on Environmental Quality to stop the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from surgically sterilizing wild free-roaming mares and stallions in the White Mountain Herd Management Area (HMA) in Wyoming.

BLM drops the plan in response to AWHC filings.

2011-2013

Intervention in Rock Springs Grazing Association vs BLM

AWHC intervened in a Rock Springs Grazing Association (RSGA) lawsuit against the BLM seeking the removal of all federally-protected wild horses from the Wyoming Checkerboard. Notable documents include an excellent AWHC response brief and a declaration by a retired BLM range specialist about the agency's preferential treatment of livestock.

BLM entered into a 2013 consent decree agreeing to undertake a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to evaluate amendments to Resource Management Plans to zero out the Salt Wells Creek and Great Divide Basin HMAs, cut the size of the habitat and wild horse population in half in the Adobe Town HMA, and reduce the wild horse population in the White Mountain HMA to 205 and manage it as a non-reproducing herd.
AWHC objected to the consent decree but as an intervenor, could not prevent the parties from signing it.
This consent decree set in motion the NEPA process leading to the RMP amendments, which we are now challenging (oral arguments 7/16/2024).

2014-2016

Checkerboard #1

AWHC files suit against BLM over a plan to remove 1,000+ wild horses from the Adobe Town, Great Divide Basin, and Salt Wells Creek HMAs. The BLM plan relied on the RSGA’s request to remove wild horses from all private lands in the Wyoming Checkerboard to justify the removal of wild horses from public lands as well.

Wyoming judge rules in favor of AWHC, finding that BLM violated NEPA, but against AWHC’s claim that the action violated the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.
AWHC appeals lower court decision to the 10th Circuit (2015).
10th Circuit rules in favor of AWHC (2016), finding that it was unlawful to rely on the RSGA request to remove wild horses from private lands as justification to remove them from public lands as well.
This is a major precedential case that established the BLM cannot treat public lands as private and manage them according to the demands of private landowners.

State of Wyoming vs. Interior Department - Intervention

AWHC intervened in a lawsuit filed by the State of Wyoming on behalf of ranchers seeking the mass roundup and removal of thousands of wild horses from the state. The lower court dismissed the state’s case as meritless.

State of Wyoming appealed lower court decision to the 10th Circuit.
Appellate court upholds lower court dismissal of Wyoming’s case (2016), finding that the State’s claim that BLM must remove wild horses from an HMA as soon as the population number exceeds the Appropriate Management Level was not legally valid. The court held that the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act does not define “appropriate management level” and “therefore does not equate it with any requirement to remove excess animals from a particular HMA”; “[n]or does the BLM itself define the phrase as equivalent to a determination that removal is necessary.” The court further noted that the law “clearly requires both a determination by the BLM ‘that an overpopulation exists on a given area of the public lands and that action is necessary to remove excess animals.”
This is a major precedential ruling against rancher or State claims that BLM is violating the law by not removing horses when their populations exceed the AML.

2016

Checkerboard #2

AWHC returned to court to challenge an agency decision to conduct another wild horse roundup in the Wyoming Checkerboard, while Checkerboard #1 was on appeal to the 10th Circuit.

The lawsuit alleged that BLM again violated the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act by removing wild horses from public lands without making excess determinations while removing horses from private lands at the request of RSGA.
We filed this case while our first case was pending before the 10th Circuit. BLM issued a second removal decision under Section 4 for removal of horses from private lands and demanding removal from public lands as well. This happened while we were awaiting resolution of Checkerboard #1. Once we won in the 10th Circuit in Checkerboard #1 (in October 2016), BLM could no longer proceed with the 2016 removal because the legal basis for it was the same as the 2014 removal decision that the 10th Circuit invalidated.

2017

Land Exchange Proposal

AWHC and co-plaintiffs submit a detailed proposal to the BLM, requesting that the agency analyze a public-private land exchange to resolve longstanding land management issues and user conflicts in the Wyoming Checkerboard.

According to the proposal, which was authored by attorney Bill Eubanks, “[A] land swap is the most efficient and effective way of resolving these problems and equitably allocating the resources and uses of BLM’s public lands among the many stakeholders who utilize these lands for recreational, aesthetic, scientific, ranching, and other purposes.
Despite well-established precedent for land swaps to resolve conflicts over public lands resources, the BLM declines to seriously consider this alternative that would create contiguous public land habitats for the wild horses and other wildlife in the Wyoming Checkerboard.

2017-2019

Checkerboard #3

After the 10th Circuit’s decision prevented BLM from removing wild horses from public lands based on RSGA’s request to remove wild horses from private lands, the agency devised a new and equally unlawful strategy for removing wild horses from the Wyoming Checkerboard.

The agency refused to count foals in its removal totals, a tactic that would greatly increase the number of horses that the agency removes from public lands, thereby taking these populations below their established AMLs.
AWHC sued and the district court sided with AWHC, finding that the agency’s excess determination was arbitrary and capricious. The court set aside the BLM’s decision record as a result.

2023-2024

Checkerboard 4: Challenging the RMP Amendments

AWHC and co-plaintiffs filed suit over the BLM’s decision to adopt Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendments motivated by the BLM’s 2013 consent decree with the RSGA.

The RMP amendments authorize the BLM to eliminate more than 1 million acres of wild horse habitat on federal public lands in Wyoming by eradicating the Salt Wells Creek and Great Divide Basin HMA wild horse populations and slashing the size of the habitat and population in the Adobe Town HMA by half.
We filed two merits briefs arguing that BLM acted unlawfully by eradicating these longstanding wild horse herds from these public lands based on factors Congress did not identify as relevant to such a determination. This is the first time in the 53-year history of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act that the BLM has eliminated an HMA or eradicated an entire wild horse herd where it concedes that sufficient habitat characteristics (i.e., forage, water, space, and cover) exist on these public lands to ensure a thriving natural ecological balance to sustain continued wild horse use.
Oral arguments on this case will be held in U.S. District Court in Cheyenne on July 16, 2024.

RSGA v Interior Department - Intervention

In March 2023, RSGA files suit to “enforce the 2013 consent decision” and compel the BLM to remove wild horses not only from the private lands used by RSGA’s members to graze their livestock, but also from federal public lands that are interspersed among those private lands (which are also used by RSGA members’ livestock) in the Checkerboard.

AWHC intervened in the case and filed a brief arguing that RSGA’s case fails to state a claim for which the court may grant relief.
This case is also scheduled for oral argument on July 16, 2024, in the U.S. District Court in Cheyenne.