First Amendment Invoked in BLM Wild Horse Roundup Dispute

RENO, Nev. — The Reporters Committee on Freedom of the Press claims that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is using safety concerns as a pretext to limit media access to wild horse roundups across the West, violating the First Amendment.

The National Press Photographers Association and over a dozen newspaper companies have joined the committee in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. This action supports an advocacy group engaged in legal battles over mustang roundups in Nevada.

Horseback Magazine photographer Laura Leigh and others assert their right to observe the roundups. The media groups urge the court to be skeptical of BLM's claims that media restrictions are for administrative convenience or safety concerns.

“People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing,” they stated.

The 9th Circuit sent the case, brought by Leigh’s advocacy group Wild Horse Education, back to U.S. Judge Larry Hicks in Reno to assess the constitutionality of BLM's limits.

In 2011, Hicks ruled that the balance of agency interests and public access did not justify an injunction to block the roundups. However, a three-judge appellate panel later determined he failed to assess whether these restrictions violated First Amendment rights.

Appellate Judge Milan Smith Jr. noted, “When the government excludes the press for reasons like administrative convenience, its real motive may be to prevent the gathering of information about government abuses or incompetence.”

BLM spokesman Tom Gorey stated that the agency had no comment on the latest filing. Agency officials testified that they strive to provide public access to roundups and temporary animal holding, denying claims that Leigh was specifically excluded.

The National Press Club, Nevada Press Association, Reno-Gazette Journal, The Seattle Times Company, and others argue that journalists face more dangerous assignments elsewhere and should have unrestricted access to public rangelands.

They contend that BLM's concerns are speculative and overly broad, chilling journalists' ability to cover public matters. They argue that if journalists accept risks in warzones, BLM's safety concerns are merely pretextual.

Judge Hicks acknowledged the emotional and interest-driven nature of the issue during a recent hearing.

Originally Posted By Associated Press