## Facts

- Congress enacted the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (WHA) to protect wild horses and burros on public lands and to allow removal and private placement of “excess” animals under humane conditions.
- The WHA, as amended in 1978, limited adoptions to four animals per person absent a written finding, required adopters to be “qualified” to assure humane care, and authorized transfer of title after one year if the adopter remained qualified and had treated the animals humanely.
- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), acting for the Secretary of the Interior, operated an adopt-a-horse program and adopted a 1984 fee-waiver policy for certain “unadoptable” animals.
- Animal Protection Institute of America and The Fund for Animals (API) alleged that federal officials were placing animals (including through fee waivers) with adopters whom officials knew or had strong reason to know intended to use the animals for commercial purposes once title issued.
- API sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop title transfers where the agency knew the adopter planned commercial use.
- The district court granted summary judgment to API and enjoined the Secretary from transferring title in such circumstances.
- The Secretary appealed, contesting API’s standing and the statutory interpretation adopted by the district court.

## Issues

1. Whether API had standing to challenge the Secretary’s administration of the wild horse and burro adoption and fee-waiver program.
2. Whether the WHA permits the Secretary to transfer title to an adopter when the Secretary knows the adopter intends to commercially exploit the animal upon receiving title.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that API had standing based on members’ concrete interests in the humane treatment and protection of wild horses and burros and alleged injury from the challenged practices.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for API.
- The court held the Secretary may not transfer title to adopters the Secretary knows intend commercial exploitation after receiving title.
- The court affirmed the injunction barring such title transfers.

## Legal Principles

- Under the WHA, title may be transferred only if the adopter is a “qualified individual” and has humanely cared for the animal during the one-year period.
- The “qualified individual” requirement is not limited to the moment of initial adoption; the Secretary must determine that the adopter remains qualified at the time title is transferred.
- An adopter known to intend commercial exploitation after title is issued cannot be treated as “qualified” consistent with the WHA’s text and protective purpose.
- The Secretary’s duty at title transfer is not satisfied solely by confirming one year of humane care; the agency must also refuse title where known post-transfer commercial exploitation would defeat the statutory scheme.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction requiring the Interior Department to withhold title under the WHA when officials know an adopter intends to commercially exploit a wild horse or burro after receiving title, concluding that such an adopter cannot remain a “qualified individual” for title-transfer purposes.


Animal Prot. Inst. of Am. v. Hodel, 860 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1988)