Camfield v. United States
1897 U.S. LEXIS 2114, 167 U.S. 518, 17 S. Ct. 864 (1897)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal government's power to protect public lands under the Property Clause of the Constitution is analogous to a state's police power and allows it to prohibit the erection of fences on private land when the purpose and effect of such fences are to enclose public lands.
Facts:
- The United States government owned public lands in Colorado, arranged in a checkerboard pattern where it owned the even-numbered sections.
- The defendants owned or controlled the alternating odd-numbered sections of land, interspersed with the government's public land.
- The defendants constructed a continuous fence, approximately 20 miles long, entirely on their own odd-numbered sections of land.
- The fence was strategically placed near the outer boundaries of the defendants' collective properties.
- This construction resulted in the enclosure of approximately 20,000 acres of the government's even-numbered public land sections.
- The enclosure effectively blocked public access to and use of these public lands.
- The defendants had no claim, color of title, or asserted right to the public lands they had enclosed.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a civil suit against the defendants in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado, seeking an injunction to compel the removal of the fence under the Unlawful Inclosures of Public Lands Act of 1885.
- The trial court found for the United States and issued a decree ordering the defendants to remove the fence within 30 days.
- The defendants appealed the decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Unlawful Inclosures of Public Lands Act of 1885 unconstitutionally infringe on a private landowner's rights by prohibiting fences built entirely on their own property when those fences have the effect of enclosing public lands?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brown
No, the Unlawful Inclosures of Public Lands Act of 1885 does not unconstitutionally infringe on private property rights when applied to prohibit fences on private land that enclose public lands. The court reasoned that the right to use one's property is subject to the maxim 'sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas' (use your property so as not to injure another's). The federal government possesses the rights of an ordinary proprietor over its lands and a power analogous to state police power to protect them. While the defendants' fence was technically on their land, its obvious purpose and effect was to enclose public land, which is an evasion of the statute and constitutes a nuisance. The court rejected the argument that this was an unavoidable consequence of the checkerboard land grant system, stating that the government's generosity in granting some lands did not imply a right for the grantee to monopolize the rest.
Analysis:
This decision significantly bolsters the federal government's authority under the Property Clause, establishing that its power to regulate and protect public lands extends to controlling harmful activities on adjacent private property. The court's substance-over-form reasoning prevents clever evasions of federal law and affirms that property rights are not absolute, particularly when their exercise creates a public nuisance or purpresture. This precedent became crucial for federal land management, allowing the government to combat the monopolization of the public domain and ensure public access, a principle that continues to influence modern environmental and public land law.
