## Facts

- The Kaibab National Forest and the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve in northern Arizona substantially overlapped and were federal reserves created under congressional authority.
- Predator removal and hunting restrictions caused the deer population to increase to levels that depleted forage, damaged federal lands by overbrowsing young trees and plants, and led to large-scale deer deaths.
- Federal officials, acting under the Secretary of Agriculture, attempted nonlethal removal of deer, but those measures failed.
- The district forester, under the Secretary’s direction, began killing large numbers of deer on the reserves and shipping carcasses outside the reserves to prevent serious injury to federal lands.
- Arizona officials, including the Governor, game warden, county attorney, and sheriff, asserted that the federal program violated state game laws restricting killing, possession, and transportation of deer.
- State officers interfered with the federal program, threatened arrests and prosecutions, and arrested individuals acting under federal direction.
- The United States sued in federal court to enjoin state officers from enforcing state game laws against federal officers and agents carrying out the Secretary’s order.

## Issues

1. Whether the United States may reduce an overpopulated wild deer herd on federal forest and preserve lands by killing deer and shipping carcasses off-reserve notwithstanding conflicting state game laws.
2. Whether the Secretary of Agriculture had statutory authority to direct the killing and shipment as a federal land-protection measure.
3. Whether state officers may arrest or prosecute federal officers and agents for killing, possessing, or transporting deer pursuant to the Secretary’s order.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the permanent injunction entered by the three-judge district court.
- The Court held that the United States may reduce the deer herd by killing deer and shipping carcasses outside the reserves when the herd’s size causes serious damage to federal lands.
- The Court held that this authority arises from federal ownership of the affected lands and operates independently of contrary state game laws.
- The Court held that the Secretary of Agriculture’s order directing the cull and shipment was within authority granted by Congress.
- The Court upheld injunctive relief preventing Arizona officials from arresting or prosecuting federal officers and agents for actions taken under the Secretary’s order.
- The Court required a modification: carcasses and parts taken from the reserves must be marked to show they were killed under federal authority.

## Legal Principles

- The United States has power, based on its ownership of federal lands, to take necessary measures to protect those lands from injury, including reducing destructive wildlife populations.
- Federal land-protection measures authorized by Congress are not defeated by conflicting state game laws as applied to federal lands and federal operations.
- Federal courts may enjoin state officers from enforcing state law in a manner that obstructs federal officers and agents carrying out valid federal directives on federal property.
- When authorizing removal of wildlife from federal reserves, the Court may impose conditions (such as marking requirements) to prevent confusion or misuse of the authorization.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the federal government could cull and remove overabundant deer from federal reserves to protect federal lands, notwithstanding Arizona’s game laws, and it affirmed an injunction barring state officials from interfering, with the added requirement that carcasses and parts be marked to show federal authorization.


Hunt v. United States, 278 U.S. 96 (1928)