McKelvey v. United States
43 S. Ct. 132, 260 U.S. 353, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2376 (1922)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Act of February 25, 1885 prohibits the obstruction of free passage over public lands, and this prohibition extends to transient acts of force, threats, or intimidation against particular persons, not just permanent physical barriers.
Facts:
- In August 1919, three employees were tasked with driving a band of sheep across a route that included a trail on unoccupied public lands of the United States in Idaho.
- The petitioners, a group of men who claimed the area was a cattle range, confronted the employees and demanded they use a different trail several miles away.
- After the employees refused to move the sheep immediately, some of the petitioners returned, lined up with rifles, and made a hostile demonstration to intimidate one of the employees.
- The following morning, after an owner instructed the employees to continue on the original trail, the petitioners rode up on a gallop and ordered the employees to put their hands up.
- The petitioners then began shooting, seriously injuring one employee and terrorizing all three.
- Following the assault, the petitioners forcibly moved two of the employees and the sheep to the other side of the river, away from the trail they intended to use.
Procedural Posture:
- The five petitioners were indicted in the District Court of the United States for the District of Idaho.
- Following a trial, a jury in the federal district court convicted the petitioners.
- The petitioners, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
- The petitioners sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court.
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 using force, threats, and intimidation to prevent specific individuals from driving sheep across unoccupied public lands on a single occasion violate the Act of February 25, 1885, which prohibits the obstruction of free passage over such lands?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Van Devanter
Yes, using force and threats to prevent specific individuals from crossing public lands violates the Act of February 25, 1885. The statute's prohibition on obstructing 'free passage' is not limited to permanent or general obstructions like a fence; it also applies to transient and specific acts of intimidation. Passage is 'free' when it is open to all, and it ceases to be free when anyone withholds it from others, whether permanently or temporarily. Congress has the authority under the Property Clause to regulate the use of public lands and to prohibit interference with sanctioned uses like free transit. This federal law does not improperly encroach upon state police power, as a single act can constitute two separate offenses—one against the state (e.g., assault) and one against the United States (e.g., obstructing passage on public lands).
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that federal authority over public lands extends to criminalizing acts of personal violence when such acts are used as a means to obstruct federally protected rights, such as free transit. It establishes that the concept of 'obstruction' under the 1885 Act is broad, encompassing not just physical barriers but also temporary, coercive acts against individuals. This precedent strengthens the federal government's power to police conduct on its lands, affirming that the same criminal act can be prosecuted under both state and federal law without violating principles of double jeopardy, a concept known as the dual sovereignty doctrine.
