Fighting Wild Horse Extinction at the 10th Circuit Court

AWHC Returns to Court to Fight Wyoming Wild Horse Extinction

From http://www.AmericanWildHorse.Org

For over a decade, AWHC’s attorney, Bill Eubanks of Eubanks and Associates, has been on the frontlines of the fight to protect Wyoming’s Checkerboard wild horses. Yesterday, he faced off against lawyers for the federal government, State of Wyoming  and livestock industry at the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. He argued to overturn a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decision that would eliminate 2 million acres of wild horse habitat and eradicate the iconic Salt Wells Creek and Great Divide Basin herds.

Representing AWHC, Animal Welfare Institute, Western Watersheds, conservationist Chad Hanson, and photographers Carol Walker and Kimerlee Curyl, Bill took on a tough panel of judges, answering pointed questions with expertise. Our case hinges on the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act’s requirement that wild horses can only be removed (or entirely eradicated) from an area of public lands if the government determines their removal is necessary to restore a thriving natural ecological balance. Even the government’s attorney conceded that these lands already meet this standard, offering no justification under the 1971 law for eliminating these herds. Instead, they cited the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1978—a later law that does not override the Wild Horse Act’s protections.

Bill and Friends of Animals attorney Jennifer Best countered this argument, making it clear that nothing in the 1978 law nullifies the legal protections granted to wild horses in 1971. Bill closed the hearing by citing key Supreme Court and Appellate Court precedents—including two landmark Tenth Circuit rulings secured by AWHC in 2016, which affirm that:

• The BLM cannot use private land removal requests to justify eliminating wild horses from public lands.
• The BLM is not required to remove wild horses simply because their numbers exceed management levels. Instead, the agency must prove removal—not alternatives like fertility control or reducing livestock grazing—is necessary to restore ecological balance.

The case is now before a three-judge panel, with a ruling expected before July—just as the BLM plans to begin mass removals. The stakes couldn’t be higher. This decision will determine the fate of over 3,500 wild horses and set a precedent for whether private livestock interests can dictate the future of federally protected wild horses on public lands. With far-reaching implications for wild horse and burro protection across the West, this is one of the most consequential legal battles in the history of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.

The facts and law are on our side, and we’re awaiting the ruling with cautious optimism. Follow us at @freewildhorses for updates and ways to take action in support of wild horse protection.

You can listen to the Oral Argument here, we are the last hearing of the day at about 2:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap8rfftLWtM

Article about the curly horses in Salt Wells Creek: https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/03/19/federal-court-to-decide-fate-of-wyomings-rare-curly-haired-wild-mustangs/