Kleppe v. New Mexico
Kleppe v. New Mexico is a significant Supreme Court case centered around the protection of wild horses and burros under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. The case arose when the New Mexico Livestock Board, responding to complaints from a rancher about wild burros interfering with livestock grazing on federal land, removed and sold the animals, citing state law. The federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) intervened, asserting that the removal violated federal law, leading to a constitutional challenge by New Mexico.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Congress possesses broad authority under the U.S. Constitution's property clause to regulate public lands and protect wildlife. The Court rejected the state's claims of encroachment on state sovereignty and emphasized that federal law supersedes state law when conflicts arise, particularly in the context of wildlife protection. This landmark decision not only affirmed the federal government's power to manage public lands but also highlighted the ecological importance of wild horses and burros within that system. The implications of the ruling extended to the relationship between federal land management and state interests, contributing to ongoing debates about land use and environmental values in the American West, particularly during the 1970s.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Kleppe v. New Mexico
The Case: U.S. Supreme Court ruling concerning wildlife on public lands
Date: Decided on June 17, 1976
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Kleppe v. New Mexico remains its most definitive statement on the use of the U.S. Constitution’s property clause to protect wildlife.
The U.S. Congress enacted the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act in 1971 to protect wild horses and burros on federal public lands from capture, harassment, and death. After passage of the law, the New Mexico Livestock Board received a complaint from a rancher who held a permit to graze livestock on federal land; the rancher asserted that wild burros were interfering with his livestock operation. The board responded by using its authority under the state’s Estray Law to remove the burros and sell them at public auction. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) then demanded that the board recover the animals and return them to public lands, but the Livestock Board challenged the constitutionality of the federal statute. A three-judge federal district court held that the statute was an unconstitutional use by Congress of its power under the property clause.
The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in a unanimous decision the Court rejected New Mexico’s narrow view of the U.S. Constitution’s property clause as giving Congress only the power to dispose of and make incidental rules for the use and protection of federal property. The Court took a broad view of the property clause that granted Congress unlimited power over public lands. The Court held that Congress had both the power of a proprietor to protect its lands from trespass and injury and the power of a legislature to make needful rules respecting federal lands, including the power to protect wildlife living on those lands. In passing the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, the Court found, Congress had determined that the animals were an integral part of the natural system of public lands and that their management was necessary to the achievement of ecological balance on public lands.
The Court also rejected the state’s argument that the federal statute encroached on state sovereignty and that Congress could not obtain exclusive jurisdiction over public lands within the state unless New Mexico consented. The Court acknowledged that the federal government did not have exclusive jurisdiction over its public lands within New Mexico; the state still had the authority to enforce its civil and criminal laws on federal lands. In this case, however, the New Mexico Estray Law violated the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, Article VI, section 2, because it conflicted with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act by authorizing the state Livestock Board to remove and sell federally protected animals.
Kleppe v. New Mexico is the Supreme Court’s most definitive decision on the use of the property clause to protect wildlife on public lands. The Court did not decide whether the clause extended the reach of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to protect those animals that stray onto private land, but its decision in Camfield v. United States (1897) suggests that Congress can use its property clause power to make laws that regulate conduct on private land that affects public land. Together with the Supreme Court’s treaty clause decision in Missouri v. Holland (1920) and its commerce clause decision in Douglas v. Seacoast Products (1977), the Kleppe decision provides broad constitutional authority for federal wildlife law.
The Kleppe decision and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 granted the BLM increased power to protect wildlife on public lands, reflecting the growing importance of environmental values in land management practices in the American West during the 1970’s. At the same time, these changes led to quarrels between federal agencies and ranchers who leased federal lands to graze their livestock. This discontent grew into the Sagebrush Rebellion, advocates of which used legal and political actions to assert, albeit unsuccessfully, state control over lands managed by federal agencies.
Bibliography
Alexander, Kristina, and Ross Gorte. Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2007.
Merrill, Karen. Public Lands and Political Meaning: Ranchers, the Government, and the Property Between Them. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.