The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, Oct. 20, declined to hear a Wyoming landowner’s appeal challenging the practice of corner-crossing, effectively ending a closely watched legal battle and establishing the ability to cross private property corners to reach landlocked public lands across parts of the American West.
The court’s decision not to take up the case leaves in place lower court rulings favoring four Missouri hunters who crossed from one parcel of public land to another by stepping over the surveyed corner where private property meets in Carbon County. The justices provided no explanation for their decision, which is customary when the court declines to hear cases.
The ruling has significant implications for hunters and outdoor enthusiasts seeking access to millions of acres of public land currently blocked by private property. Approximately 8.3 million acres of public land across the West are considered corner-locked, with 2.4 million of those acres in Wyoming alone. The 10th Circuit’s decision now provides legal access to roughly 3.5 million acres within the six-state region under its jurisdiction.
Case background
The dispute began in fall 2021 when four Missouri hunters — Brad Cape and three companions — used a ladder to step over the corner point where private land owned by Elk Mountain Ranch met public Bureau of Land Management parcels. The hunters were pursuing elk on the 20,000-plus-acre ranch owned by North Carolina pharmaceutical magnate Fred Eshelman through his company Iron Bar Holdings.
Eshelman initially filed criminal trespass charges against the hunters, but a county court found them not guilty. Undeterred, Eshelman filed a civil lawsuit seeking more than $7 million in damages, arguing the hunters had violated his property rights by passing through the airspace above his land.
Federal courts sided with the hunters at every level. Wyoming U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled in 2023 corner-crossing in the checkerboard area of Wyoming is not trespassing. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver backed him up with a unanimous decision in March 2025.
Impact on hunters
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal means hunters can now legally use corner-crossing techniques to access public lands in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas and Oklahoma – the six states covered by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, corner crossing remains a legal gray area in other Western states including Montana, Idaho, Nevada, California, Arizona, Oregon and Washington. Hunters should check local regulations and consult with wildlife officials before attempting the practice outside the six-state region where it is now clearly legal.
Wildlife advocates estimate the decision opens access to hunting opportunities on vast tracts of Western public land where elk, mule deer, pronghorn and other game animals roam. Many of these areas were previously accessible only to those who could afford expensive outfitter fees or lease agreements with private landowners.
The four Missouri hunters’ attorney, Ryan Semerad, confirmed the ruling settles the issue in the six-state region. He noted the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case does not constitute an endorsement of the lower court’s reasoning, but simply means the justices chose not to review it.
For hunters, the practical impact is immediate. Public lands having been effectively off-limits for generations can now be accessed legally, as long as hunters take care not to touch private property when crossing corners. This includes some of the most wildlife-rich habitat in the American West, particularly in the checkerboard pattern areas created by 19th-century railroad land grants.
Legal foundation
The 10th Circuit judges based their unanimous ruling on the 1885 Unlawful Inclosures Act, a federal law enacted during the Western expansion era to prevent landowners from blocking public access to federal lands. The three-judge panel found the UIA prevents landowners in checkerboard areas from obstructing public passage to public lands.
Judge Timothy Tymkovich wrote in the March decision the hunters “never made contact with the surface” of the ranch owner’s land. The court found no evidence the hunters made physical contact with or damaged the private property. The judges reasoned the 1885 law was specifically designed to prevent exactly the kind of obstruction Eshelman was attempting – using private property to effectively control access to adjacent public lands.
Eshelman had argued through his company Iron Bar Holdings the hunters trespassed when they passed through the airspace above his property, which he claimed violated Wyoming trespass law. He maintained the 10th Circuit’s interpretation of the Unlawful Inclosures Act trampled on state property rights and granted easements across thousands of checkerboard properties without compensation.
The ranch owner’s attorneys argued the appeals court decision contradicted the Supreme Court’s 1979 ruling in Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, where justices found the federal government did not have an implied easement to build a road across a common checkerboard corner. Eshelman’s legal team contended the 10th Circuit’s decision would create uncertainty for millions of landowners and recreationalists across millions of acres.
Courts at every level rejected these arguments. The 10th Circuit distinguished the Leo Sheep case, noting the decision involved the federal government seeking to construct permanent infrastructure, not individuals crossing corners without touching private land. Judge Tymkovich wrote the Unlawful Inclosures Act and the checkerboard land pattern “reflect a storied period of our history” and remain valid federal law regardless of modern debates about their merits.
Understanding the checkerboard
The corner-crossing controversy stems directly from 19th-century federal policy. Beginning in 1862, Congress granted alternating square-mile sections of public land to railroad companies to encourage westward rail expansion. This created a checkerboard pattern across much of Wyoming and other Western states, with public and private land parcels meeting only at their corners.
In Carbon County where Eshelman’s ranch is located, this checkerboard pattern overlays some of the most wildlife-rich terrain in Wyoming. Elk Mountain offers prime habitat for elk, mule deer and pronghorn antelope. Eshelman’s ranch enmeshes approximately 6,000 acres of public land, meaning public parcels are completely surrounded by his private holdings and can only be reached with his permission or by corner-crossing.
By blocking public access at the corners, a landowner essentially gains exclusive use of public property. Critics argue this allows wealthy landowners to privatize public resources belonging to all Americans. Eshelman himself is a hunter, which made his opposition to public access particularly contentious among the hunting community.
The checkerboard pattern exists throughout Wyoming’s Red Desert, the Powder River Basin and other regions where federal land grants supported railroad construction in the 19th century.
Landowner concerns
Private landowners’ groups and property rights advocates filed numerous amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to hear Eshelman’s appeal. The Wyoming Stock Growers Association and other agricultural organizations expressed concern the ruling could lead to increased traffic near property boundaries and potential conflicts over exact corner locations in areas where survey markers are not clearly visible.
Ranchers warned unrestrained public access could cause stress to livestock, particularly during calving season. They argued the 10th Circuit’s interpretation of the Unlawful Inclosures Act was overly broad and undermined fundamental property rights, including the right to exclude others from one’s land.
Some conservative legal groups argued the decision amounts to an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation. They contended the 10th Circuit essentially granted perpetual easements across thousands of private properties without paying landowners. Property rights advocates warned the ruling creates uncertainty about liability if corner-crossers are injured near property boundaries.
Montana landowners filed a brief arguing there is a need for a nationwide rule addressing corner-crossing, and the case represented the Supreme Court’s best opportunity to establish such precedent. They noted the decision affects an estimated 150 million acres of public and private land across the West.
The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence reached back to English common law in arguments supporting Eshelman, emphasizing the ancient right of landowners to control access across their property.
Next steps for hunters
Hunters planning to use corner-crossing techniques in the six states where it is now clearly legal should take several precautions to ensure they remain within the law and avoid conflicts with landowners.
First and foremost, do not touch private property. The entire legal foundation for the 10th Circuit’s ruling rests on the fact the Missouri hunters never made physical contact with Eshelman’s land. Any contact with private property could constitute trespass under state law. This means using sturdy steps, ladders or similar equipment to cross over fence posts at exact corner points without touching ground or fencing on private land.
Use GPS devices loaded with detailed property boundary information. Several mapping applications popular with hunters now include public and private land boundaries down to the parcel level. OnX Hunt and similar services provide coordinate data accurate to within a few feet. Save waypoints at corner locations and document your crossing with photographs showing GPS coordinates and your position relative to boundary markers.
Look for surveyor pins or boundary markers at corners. These brass caps or iron posts mark the exact meeting points of four parcels. If markers are not visible or you cannot definitively identify the corner location, err on the side of caution. Trespassing charges could still be filed if you cross at the wrong location.
Respect wildlife and habitat. Follow all game regulations, practice leave-no-trace principles and be mindful your actions may affect future access for all hunters. Negative interactions or habitat damage could prompt legislative responses restricting corner-crossing despite its current legal status.
Consider carrying printed copies of the 10th Circuit decision and familiarize yourself with the Unlawful Inclosures Act. While you are not required to provide legal justification to anyone, having documentation may help if confronted by landowners or law enforcement.
Be prepared for confrontation. Some landowners remain opposed to corner-crossing despite the court rulings. Stay calm and polite if approached. Simply state you are exercising your legal right to access public land and document any interactions.
Report obstructions. If you encounter fences, gates or other structures deliberately placed to prevent corner-crossing on public land, report them to the Bureau of Land Management or relevant land management agency. The Unlawful Inclosures Act specifically prohibits such obstructions, and agencies have enforcement authority.
State and federal response
Wildlife officials in affected states are reviewing regulations and considering whether additional guidance is needed for hunters and land managers. Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials have indicated they will provide updated information about accessing landlocked parcels through corner-crossing, though specific guidelines have not yet been released.
Some Western state legislators have discussed codifying corner-crossing rules into state law to provide clearer guidance beyond what the federal court decision offers. Such legislation could establish standards for how crossings must be conducted, liability protections for landowners and penalties for those who damage private property while attempting to cross corners.
The Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, which manage millions of acres affected by the decision, are evaluating how to facilitate public access to previously landlocked parcels. This could include improved mapping resources, educational materials for recreationalists and potentially installing infrastructure at high-use corners.
Federal agencies may also review existing access easement programs. For decades, agencies have spent millions purchasing permanent easements across private land to reach landlocked public parcels. The corner-crossing decision potentially reduces the need for such purchases in checkerboard areas.
Conservation groups including Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership have offered to work with agencies and landowners to develop best practices for corner-crossing minimizing conflicts. These organizations emphasize their goal is responsible public land access.
Some wildlife commissions may consider regulatory changes addressing hunter behavior on newly accessible lands. This could include requiring hunters to carry GPS devices with boundary data, seasonal restrictions in sensitive wildlife areas or special permits for corner-locked parcels.
Broader conservation impact
Beyond hunting access, the corner-crossing decision has implications for wildlife conservation and habitat management. Federal agencies can now more effectively manage landlocked parcels for wildlife habitat, conduct prescribed burns, control invasive species and implement other conservation measures without requiring landowner permission for access.
Scientific researchers studying wildlife populations, migration patterns and habitat use can reach previously inaccessible areas to conduct field work. This improved access may enhance data collection and wildlife management decisions across the West.
However, increased human access to previously undisturbed areas could stress wildlife populations, particularly during sensitive seasons. Wildlife managers will need to balance access with conservation needs, potentially restricting corner-crossing in critical habitats during vulnerable times.
The economic impact extends beyond hunting and recreation. Local economies in rural Western communities could benefit from increased hunter and recreationalist spending as more public land becomes accessible. Property values may also shift as ranches commanding premium prices partly due to exclusive access to adjacent public lands see valuations change.
Historical context
The corner-crossing debate connects to long-standing tensions over public land management in the American West. Since the 19th century, competing visions of how public resources should be controlled and accessed have shaped Western politics and policy.
The 1885 Unlawful Inclosures Act itself emerged from conflicts between large ranching operations and homesteaders. Cattle barons had fenced vast expanses of public rangeland, preventing settlers from accessing federal lands. Congress passed the UIA to stop this practice and ensure public lands remained open to settlement and use.
That same era saw railroad land grants create the checkerboard pattern now at the center of corner-crossing disputes. The federal government granted alternating sections to railroad companies as incentive to build transcontinental and regional rail lines. The government retained alternating sections for homesteading and resource development.
This arrangement made sense in the 19th century when railroad companies needed contiguous routes and the government wanted to encourage Western development. Today, the checkerboard pattern creates access challenges Congress never anticipated.
The Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and 1980s represented another chapter in Western public land conflicts, with some state officials and ranchers demanding federal lands be transferred to state control. While the movement failed, its ideological descendants continue advocating for expanded private property rights.
Corner-crossing became a flashpoint because it crystallizes fundamental disagreements about whether public land should truly be accessible to the public. The legal battle reflects broader cultural divides between those who see public lands as a common heritage and those who prioritize private property rights above public access.
What remains uncertain
While the Supreme Court’s decision settles corner-crossing law in six states, significant uncertainty remains across much of the West. Montana, Idaho, Nevada, California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and other states with substantial corner-locked public lands fall outside the 10th Circuit’s jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court could still agree to hear a similar corner-crossing case from another circuit in the future, which would establish a nationwide precedent. Legal experts note the court accepts only about 5% of petitions requesting review. Until such a case is decided, hunters in states outside the 10th Circuit must navigate a legal gray area.
Some states may pass legislation explicitly prohibiting corner-crossing, while others might legalize and regulate the practice. Montana legislators have previously considered bills addressing the issue. The patchwork of state laws and court decisions creates confusion for hunters who travel across state lines.
Liability questions also remain unresolved. If someone is injured while corner-crossing, can the adjacent landowner be held liable? The 10th Circuit did not address this issue.
The decision also does not address corner-crossing on state trust lands or other non-federal public lands. Some states manage substantial acreages held in trust for public schools. Whether the Unlawful Inclosures Act applies to these lands is unclear.
Technology may complicate enforcement. As GPS accuracy improves and mapping data becomes more precise, disputes may arise over whether someone truly crossed at a corner or stepped onto private property. Courts will likely need to determine acceptable margins of error.
Looking forward
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a turning point in Western public land access. How the ruling is implemented, whether other states follow suit and how conflicts between landowners and recreationalists are managed will shape the practical impact of corner-crossing legalization.
Hunting organizations emphasize the need for responsible use of newly accessible lands. Bad behavior by a few individuals could prompt legislative backlash. Groups like Backcountry Hunters & Anglers stress corner-crossing rights come with responsibilities to respect private property boundaries and follow all game laws.
Landowner organizations will likely continue seeking legislative solutions they view as more favorable than the court decision. Possible approaches include requiring corner-crossers to notify adjacent landowners, seasonal restrictions or mandatory liability insurance. Whether such restrictions would survive legal challenge under the Unlawful Inclosures Act remains to be seen.
Technology companies providing mapping services to hunters will play an increasingly important role. Accurate boundary data and user-friendly interfaces showing corner locations will be essential tools for the hunting community.
Federal and state agencies face the challenge of managing increased recreational use on previously inaccessible lands. This may require additional law enforcement presence and improved signage at popular access points.
The decision represents a significant victory for public land access advocates who have long argued American citizens should be able to reach tax-supported federal lands for hunting, fishing and recreation without requiring permission from adjacent private landowners. However, advocates acknowledge legal access alone does not guarantee successful outcomes – those require continued cooperation among hunters, landowners and land managers to ensure Western landscapes and wildlife thrive for future generations.
