Iron Bar Holdings v. Cape
122-1 (10th Cir. Mar. 18, 2025) (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 prohibits a private landowner from enclosing public lands, which includes bringing a state-law civil trespass claim to prevent individuals from corner-crossing when that is the only practical means of accessing the landlocked public land.
Facts:
- Iron Bar Holdings, LLC (Iron Bar) owns a 50-square-mile ranch in Carbon County, Wyoming, where private and public lands are arranged in a checkerboard pattern.
- Interspersed within Iron Bar's ranch are 27 landlocked federal and state public parcels, which are valuable for elk hunting and are only accessible on foot by 'corner-crossing' where the corners of public parcels touch.
- In the fall of 2020, Bradley Cape, Zachary Smith, and Phillip Yeomans traveled to the area to hunt elk on the public lands.
- To access a landlocked public section, the hunters corner-crossed by stepping from one public parcel to another, momentarily passing through the airspace over Iron Bar's property without touching its surface.
- Iron Bar had erected signposts and a chain at one corner to obstruct passage, which the hunters maneuvered around.
- Iron Bar's manager confronted the hunters on public land and, upon their refusal to leave, contacted law enforcement, who took no action.
- The hunters returned in 2021 with John Slowensky and used an A-frame ladder to corner-cross, again avoiding physical contact with Iron Bar's property.
- Iron Bar's staff repeatedly confronted the hunters, interfered with their hunt by driving vehicles to scare away game, and successfully lobbied the local prosecutor's office to bring criminal trespass charges against them.
Procedural Posture:
- The hunters were prosecuted for criminal trespass in Wyoming state court and were acquitted by a jury.
- On the day of their acquittal, Iron Bar Holdings, LLC filed a civil complaint against the hunters in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, alleging civil trespass and seeking damages.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The U.S. District Court denied Iron Bar's motion and granted the hunters' motion for summary judgment, ruling that corner-crossing on foot without physically contacting private land or causing damage does not constitute an unlawful trespass.
- Iron Bar Holdings, LLC, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
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 Act of 1885 prevent a private landowner from bringing a civil trespass claim against individuals who step from one corner of a public parcel to another, momentarily passing through the landowner's airspace, when corner-crossing is the only practical means of accessing the public land?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Tymkovich
Yes. The Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 (UIA) prevents a private landowner from asserting a state-law civil trespass claim to prohibit corner-crossing where such an action would have the effect of completely enclosing public lands. While passing through Iron Bar's airspace would likely constitute a civil trespass under Wyoming common law and its 'ad coelum' doctrine, federal law preempts state law in this context. The court's precedent in U.S. ex rel. Bergen v. Lawrence establishes that any barrier, whether physical (like a fence) or legal (like a trespass suit), that effectively prevents access to public land for a lawful purpose is an unlawful 'inclosure' under the UIA. The Supreme Court's decision in Leo Sheep Co. v. United States is distinguishable because it dealt with the government's attempt to claim a permanent implied easement to build a road, a much more significant intrusion, and did not involve a situation where all access was otherwise denied. The court instead follows the nuisance-abatement theory from Camfield v. United States, which held that inclosing public lands constitutes a nuisance that federal law can proscribe, even if abating it requires a minimal entry upon private property. Therefore, Iron Bar's attempt to use a trespass action to prevent corner-crossing is an unlawful attempt to enclose the public domain.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a public right of access to millions of acres of landlocked public land in the American West's 'checkerboard' regions. It clarifies that the Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 provides a federal defense against state-law trespass claims, extending the logic of precedent from physical fences to legal barriers like lawsuits. By narrowly construing the Supreme Court's holding in Leo Sheep, the court signals that minimal, non-damaging intrusions like corner-crossing are permissible to prevent the de facto privatization of public resources. The ruling will significantly influence future land-use disputes between private landowners and public land users, favoring public access where it would otherwise be completely obstructed.
