## Facts

- Congress enacted the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 to protect unbranded, unclaimed horses and burros on federal public lands from capture and other harm, and to manage them as part of an ecological balance on those lands.
- The Act placed covered animals on federal public lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture and provided a process for removing animals that stray onto private land upon notification to federal officials.
- A New Mexico rancher holding a federal grazing permit near Taylor Well complained that unbranded burros were interfering with his cattle and consuming feed.
- After the Bureau of Land Management declined to remove the animals, New Mexico’s Livestock Board, acting under the state estray law, entered federal public lands, seized nineteen unbranded burros, and sold them at public auction.
- Federal officials asserted federal jurisdiction over the burros under the Act and demanded that the state recover the animals and return them to public lands.
- New Mexico, the Livestock Board and its director, and a purchaser of several burros sued to enjoin enforcement of the Act and to obtain a declaration that it was unconstitutional.

## Issues

1. Whether the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, as applied to bar New Mexico officials from seizing wild burros on federal public lands under state estray law, is a valid exercise of Congress’s Property Clause power.
2. Whether the Act unconstitutionally intrudes on state sovereignty by displacing state estray and wildlife regulation on federal lands within the state.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the three-judge district court.
- The Court held that, as applied, the Act is constitutional under the Property Clause and may prohibit New Mexico officials from entering federal public lands to remove and dispose of protected burros under state estray law.
- The Court rejected the argument that Congress must obtain state consent or exclusive federal enclave jurisdiction to legislate in ways that conflict with state law on federal public lands.
- The Court concluded that valid federal regulation of federal lands and resources preempts conflicting state law, so New Mexico could not implement its estray scheme on federal public lands to defeat federal policy.
- The injunction against enforcement of the Act was vacated.

## Legal Principles

- The Property Clause grants Congress broad authority to make “needful” rules and regulations respecting federal property, including comprehensive regulation of federal public lands.
- Congress’s power over federal public lands includes authority to regulate and protect wildlife living on those lands when tied to federal land management.
- Federal legislative power under the Property Clause is independent of, and distinct from, exclusive jurisdiction over federal enclaves under Article I; state consent is not required for Property Clause legislation.
- When Congress validly legislates under the Property Clause, conflicting state laws are preempted and may not be used to override federal land-management policy on federal lands.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld federal protection and management of wild burros on federal public lands as a valid exercise of Congress’s Property Clause power and held that New Mexico could not apply its estray law on federal lands to seize and sell federally protected animals.


Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976)