A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit heard oral arguments over whether federal law requires the government to move more quickly to remove excess wild horses from public rangelands in Nevada.
The dispute centers on how to interpret the word “immediately” in the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WHA), a statute that directs federal agencies to remove excess animals from the range when overpopulation threatens rangeland health.
The case was brought by Nevada ranching operations Colvin & Son LLC and Stone Cabin Ranch LLC, which hold grazing permits in areas where wild horse populations have exceeded federally established management levels. The ranchers argue that gather plans developed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) fail to meet the statute’s requirement for the immediate removal of excess animals.
The case reached the appellate court after a lower court ruled in favor of the federal government, concluding that BLM’s plans satisfied the statute so long as removal actions occur “as promptly as reasonably possible.” The ranchers now seek a reversal, arguing that the plans lack concrete timelines and therefore do not comply with federal law.
Background
The dispute arises from BLM management plans for two herd areas in central Nevada: the Little Fish Lake Joint Management Area and the Stone Cabin Complex. Both areas contain wild horse populations significantly above the federally established appropriate management level (AML), the threshold used to maintain a “thriving natural ecological balance” on public lands.
In the Stone Cabin Complex alone, the agency determined that at least 689 excess horses were present above the lower AML limit. According to BLM assessments, the overpopulation has contributed to heavy forage utilization, riparian damage and increased vehicle collisions involving wild horses along nearby access roads.
In response, BLM issued environmental assessments and decision records outlining a 10-year management plan. The plans included three primary components: an initial gather to remove excess horses, fertility control measures to slow population growth and follow-up maintenance gathers if populations again exceeded AML.
However, the ranchers contend the plans fail to specify when the initial gather will occur. They argue that by allowing gathers to be delayed depending on factors such as funding, national priorities or corral capacity, the agency effectively gives itself the discretion to postpone removal indefinitely.
Ranchers’ argument
At the center of the case is a single statutory term: “immediately.” The WHA directs the secretary of the Interior to “immediately remove excess animals from the range” once an overpopulation determination has been made.
Representing the ranchers, attorney W. Alan Schroeder argued that once the agency determines excess animals exist under the statute, it triggers a legal duty to remove them quickly.
“If there’s a determination of excess … that should trigger action to remove them, and at that point in time it must be done as expeditiously as possible,” Schroeder said during the hearing.
He told the court the BLM plans contain no meaningful limits on when removal will occur. The plans describe initial gathers, fertility control and follow-up actions, but fail to include any “temporal sideboards” governing when the first gathers must take place. Without those parameters, he argued, the plans leave too much discretion to the agency.
Government position
Representing the federal government, attorney Tamara Rountree argued that the statute does not require the agency to include specific deadlines in the gather plans.
According to Rountree, the WHA mandates certain procedures—such as identifying sick or lame animals, facilitating adoptions and ensuring humane removal—that inherently take time.
She told the court that the statute addresses the agency’s obligation to act but does not dictate how quickly a gather must begin or end.
To illustrate the ambiguity of the term “immediately,” Rountree offered a courtroom analogy. If a building is on fire and someone is told to leave immediately, she said, that likely means exiting without delay. But if a judge orders someone to leave immediately, it may still allow time to collect belongings before departing.
“‘Immediately’ oddly escapes specificity,” she said, suggesting the statute allows for reasonable logistical considerations.
Judges press both sides
The panel—comprised of judges Mark Bennett, Gabriel Sanchez and visiting district judge John Holcomb—pressed attorneys on whether the statute truly requires the type of timeline the ranchers seek.
Bennett pointed out that the law requires several steps beyond simple removal, including adoption programs and humane treatment provisions. Sanchez similarly questioned whether the dispute was largely semantic, asking whether the case ultimately boils down to “the difference between ‘prompt’ and ‘expeditious.’”
The panel also referenced the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which curtailed judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes. Bennett questioned whether requiring BLM to include precise timelines would effectively force courts to make policy decisions that Congress left to the agency.
The judges appeared to grapple with whether the case concerns the adequacy of BLM’s planning documents or the agency’s eventual implementation of them. One judge suggested that if the agency fails to act quickly enough, the ranchers could challenge the delay later under the Administrative Procedure Act rather than attacking the plan itself.
The 9th Circuit panel did not immediately rule on the case. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
10 Comments