The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of four hunters in a highly anticipated legal battle over corner-crossing, a method of accessing public land in the West’s checkerboard pattern of land ownership.
The case revolved around whether stepping from one public land parcel to another at the intersection of four parcels—without touching private land—constitutes trespassing.
The ruling legalizes corner-crossing between sections of federal land in the six states under the 10th Circuit’s jurisdiction: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.
Hunting trips
The dispute began when Iron Bar Holdings, a North Carolina-based company, accused the hunters of trespassing on its property in Wyoming during the 2020 and 2021 hunting seasons.
In the fall of 2020, the hunters traveled from Missouri to Elk Mountain, WY, for an elk hunting trip. Using the GPS mapping tool onX Hunt, they navigated to public land corners marked by steel U.S. Geological Survey caps.
They crossed between parcels without stepping on Iron Bar Holdings’ private property—only momentarily passing through its airspace. Iron Bar had installed signposts and a chain over the markers to prevent corner-crossing, but the hunters maneuvered around them without causing damage.
In 2021, the hunters returned, bringing a steel A-frame ladder to avoid even touching Iron Bar’s signposts. Iron Bar’s staff responded aggressively, confronting the hunters multiple times and using motorized vehicles to scare away game. After the hunters refused to leave, Iron Bar pressed the matter with law enforcement, leading to criminal trespassing charges. A jury later acquitted the hunters, but Iron Bar filed a civil lawsuit seeking $9 million in damages, claiming their actions diminished its property value.
The district court ruled in favor of the hunters, finding that corner-crossing without physically touching private land or causing damage does not constitute unlawful trespass.
First ruling and appeal
U.S. District Judge Scott W. Skavdahl ruled in favor of the hunters, focusing on the company’s claim to airspace ownership and the right to exclude others. Citing the 1914 Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. case, he noted that the 8th Circuit had affirmed a landowner could not entirely block access to public lands. He also referenced a 1974 10th Circuit ruling, which held that airspace trespass requires actual damage or interference with property use.
Iron Bar appealed the ruling, arguing in a reply brief the hunters failed to prove Congress intended to preempt state trespass laws under the Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 (UIA) or other federal statutes. They contended that Wyoming’s trespass law remains intact despite the defendants’ claims that federal laws such as the UIA, the Taylor Grazing Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act override it.
According to the legal team, Congress enacted the UIA to address fraud, force and fencing used to obstruct public access, not to create a right to trespass on private property. Citing 1884 congressional records, they emphasized that the UIA never referenced private trespass claims.
10th Circuit ruling
Writing for the court, Judge Timothy Tymkovich placed the dispute in the broader historical context of public land access in the American West, citing the UIA. The court emphasized that under the act, private landowners cannot “deny access to [federal] public lands for lawful purposes” by erecting legal or physical barriers. The ruling aligns with previous federal decisions, including the court’s 1988 Bergen case, which held that “a checkerboard landowner cannot maintain a barrier that has the effect of fully enclosing public lands.”
Tymkovich acknowledged lingering legal uncertainties surrounding corner-crossing, hinting that legislative or Supreme Court intervention might ultimately be needed to provide a definitive resolution.
“We appreciate this may be an unsatisfying result for property owners within the checkerboard,” he wrote. “It leaves open questions for landowners and the public alike, including who might be liable during a corner-crossing incident, and what duty of care each party owes the other. Iron Bar may be correct that the government could solve these open questions by exercising its core institutional competency to condemn access easements to landlocked checkerboard lands.”
Reactions
Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association, told WLJ in an email that they were somewhat disappointed with the decision.
“Our disappointment is focused on the court’s analysis that state laws protecting private property rights are trumped by the federal Unlawful Enclosures Act,” Magagna wrote. “At the same time, the decision appears to only sanction corner-crossing that does not physically touch the private land. We appreciate that narrow decision.”
The association filed an amicus brief in support of Iron Bar.
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA) applauded the ruling, stating it cements the legality of access to public lands.
“This decision is a major win for hunters, anglers and anyone who values the freedom to access and enjoy our public lands,” said BHA President and CEO Patrick Berry. “The American ideal of public land ownership depends on access to the landscapes and wild places that belong to all of us, not just a select few.”
While this marks the most significant victory in the case, BHA Chairman and attorney Eric Hanson told MeatEater that hunters must still be mindful of how they corner-cross.
“In 10th Circuit states, you can corner-cross, but you need to be very careful about what you’re doing,” Hanson said. He emphasized that while stepping over the corner is permitted, “touching private property, crossing into it, disturbing it, damaging it, is still not allowed.” — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
