## Facts

- A large area of southwestern Wyoming known as the “Checkerboard” consists of alternating parcels of federal public land and privately owned land.
- Wild horses moved freely across public and private parcels because the ownership pattern made effective fencing difficult.
- In 2013, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) entered a consent decree with private landowners agreeing to remove all wild horses located on private lands in the Checkerboard.
- The Wild Free–Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (WFRHBA) distinguishes between management on public lands (16 U.S.C. § 1333) and removal of horses that stray onto private lands (16 U.S.C. § 1334).
- In 2014, BLM conducted a gather that permanently removed horses from private parcels and also from adjacent public-land sections within the Checkerboard.
- BLM justified removing horses from public lands under § 1334, asserting it was practically infeasible to remove horses only from private parcels because the horses continuously crossed boundary lines.
- BLM did not make § 1333 “excess” determinations or follow § 1333 procedures for horses removed from the public-land sections.
- Wild-horse advocacy organizations and individuals sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging violations of WFRHBA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).
- The district court upheld BLM’s interpretation and action; the plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether WFRHBA § 1334’s terms “privately owned land” and “private lands” can be construed to include federal public-land sections within the Checkerboard, permitting removals from those public lands without complying with WFRHBA § 1333.
2. Whether conducting a § 1334-based gather on public lands violated BLM’s § 1333 duties and related public-land management obligations asserted under FLPMA.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded.
- The court held WFRHBA § 1334 unambiguously applies only to privately owned land and does not authorize removals from federal public lands.
- Because § 1334 did not apply to the public-land sections, BLM’s removal of horses from those public lands without following § 1333 violated clear statutory duties.
- The court rejected deference to BLM’s interpretation because the statutory text was unambiguous.
- The court concluded the challenged agency action was contrary to law under the APA insofar as it encompassed public lands.

## Legal Principles

- When statutory terms are unambiguous, courts apply the plain meaning and do not defer to an agency interpretation that conflicts with the text.
- WFRHBA § 1333 governs wild-horse management on public lands, including inventory, appropriate management levels, and procedures for determining and removing “excess” animals.
- WFRHBA § 1334 is a limited provision allowing removal of horses that stray onto privately owned land at the landowner’s request; it does not displace § 1333’s requirements for public lands.
- Administrative convenience and implementation difficulty cannot justify expanding clear statutory limits on agency authority.
- Agency action that exceeds statutory authority or bypasses mandatory procedures is unlawful under the APA.

## Conclusion

The court held BLM lacked authority to treat federal public-land sections within the Checkerboard as “private lands” under WFRHBA § 1334 and therefore could not remove horses from those public lands without complying with § 1333; the judgment upholding the gather was reversed and the case remanded.


Am. Wild Horse Pres. Campaign v. Jewell, 847 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2016)