After 14 years of litigation, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has encountered a judicial setback to its plans for eliminating wild horses from more than 2 million acres of public land in Wyoming, home to the Adobe Town, Salt Wells Creek and Great Divide Basin herds.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found serious legal failings in the BLM’s concept. contending it acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting its plan, violating federal law by failing to consider a core requirement of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. That is, managing wild horses and burros as part of a thriving natural ecological balance on public lands.
“This is a significant win for America’s wild horses and a meaningful check on BLM overreach. The court has made clear that the BLM cannot sidestep the law to appease special interests and eliminate wild horses from their rightful habitat,” said Suzanne Roy, executive director of American Wild Horse Conservation.
“Wild horses are meant to roam free, not be rounded up and erased from the landscape. We remain committed to fighting for the future of Wyoming’s iconic wild horse herds.”
Joanna Grossman, Ph.D., equine program director for the Animal Welfare Institute stated: “This ruling sends a clear message: the Bureau of Land Management cannot simply erase wild horses from the landscape because they pose an inconvenience to the agency. These animals are federally protected and must be managed humanely, not eliminated. The court’s decision upholds a key tenet of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, setting a strong precedent for the protection of wild herds across the west.”
American Wild Horse Conservation (AWHC), the Animal Welfare Institute, Western Watersheds Project and their allies have secured a legal victory that delivers a major setback to the largest attempted eradication of wild horses in U.S. history.
“Public lands are suffering not from wild horses, but from the industrial livestock lobby’s corrosive influence. The BLM removes protected mustangs only to make room for cattle and sheep—subsidized at rock bottom fees—while ignoring the real ecological damage wrought by these domestic herds,” said Erik Molvar, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project.
“This ruling demands accountability and exposes who’s truly driving degradation on the range.”
The case challenged a BLM Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendment that would have eradicated wild horses from two Herd Management Areas (HMAs) by changing their status to Herd Areas (HAs) with population targets of zero, and slashed the population in a third HMA by over half.
In planning documents, the BLM repeatedly acknowledged that areas under consideration for its management plan contained adequate forage, water, space, and other resources to sustain wild horse herds and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance. The court found the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to assess whether its decision was consistent with ecological balance—a central mandate of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.
The ruling states that the BLM cannot “use the RMP process to skirt its Wild Horse Act obligations.”
However, it also leaves room for BLM to attempt to revise and potentially reinstate its plan, underscoring the need for continued oversight and advocacy.
The lawsuit was brought by American Wild Horse Conservation, the Animal Welfare Institute, Western Watersheds Project, wildlife photographers Carol Walker and Kimerlee Curyl and sociologist and author Chad Hanson. They are represented by the public interest law firm Eubanks & Associates, PLLC. Two other wild horse protection organizations each filed separate lawsuits in the case.