On July 16, 2025, Iron Bar Holdings, LLC petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review of the “Corner Crossing Case.” The Corner Crossing Case is a federal case arising out of the Federal District of Wyoming. It is primed to set precedent on public land use in the West.
History of the Case
The Corner Crossing case arose from several incidents in 2020 and 2021. Four hunters were pursuing deer and elk on Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) land in southeast Wyoming. The BLM parcels were checkerboard with private land belonging to Iron Bar Holdings, LLC (“Iron Bar”). Iron Bar is a Wyoming based ranching operation that also provides hunting services across private and public land. It sought to exclude other hunters from using BLM parcels landlocked between its private property. Iron Bar posted the corners of its private land making it impossible to “corner cross” the adjacent BLM parcels.
Having had prior disagreements with Iron Bar in 2021, the hunters brought an a-framed ladder to navigate over the posted private corners. The hunters placed the bases of the ladder on BLM corners. The ladder crossed the airspace over the corners without touching Iron Bar’s private land. Iron Bar sought criminal charges in State Court for trespassing. The State of Wyoming found the hunters not guilty of criminal trespass. Then Iron Bar sued in federal civil court for trespass. They claimed millions of dollars in damages based 10-25% devaluation of its private property due to loss of exclusive access to public land hunting.
District and Appellate Court Holdings
Iron Bar lost its case before the Federal District of Wyoming. In its 32-page decision, the District Court ruled strongly in favor of the hunters. The court held that an individual “possess a reasonable way of passage over the unenclosed track of land without being guilty of trespass”. It found that trespass of airspace required proof of damages to the property or proof of interference in the use of the private property. Neither occurred to Iron Bar’s private land. Iron Bar appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Hunters were similarly successful before the appellate court. In its decision, the 10th Circuit agreed with the District Court and further applied the Unlawful Inclosures [CS1] Act of 1885 (“UIA”). The purpose of the UIA was to “prevent absorption and ownership of vast tracts of public domain”. Originally the UIA was primarily to control cattle barons. 43 U.S.C. § 1061 et seq. The appellate court unanimously determined the same standard applied to Iron Bar’s attempts to absorb public land adjacent to its private holdings.
Supreme Court Petition
Iron Bar had 90 days from entry of the Appellate Court’s decision to file a Petition for Write of Certiorari, requesting the Supreme Court review the case. On May 21, 2025, Iron Bar applied for an extension of time to file the Petition. The extension was granted until July 16, 2025. Iron Bar requested an additional extension of July 3, 2025, that was denied.
In July of 2025, a Petition for Writ of Certiorari [CS2] purportedly drafted by Iron Bar began circulating through blog posts. However, the Petion does not currently appear on the Supreme Court’s website listing proceedings in Iron Bar’s Case (Docket 24A1136).
The Petition frames the following question for the Supreme Court’s review:
Whether the Unlawful Inclosures Act implicitly preempts private landowner’s state-law property right to exclude in an area covering millions of acres of land throughout the West.
The Petition argues it should be granted for two reasons.
- First, Iron Bar argued it contravenes Supreme Court precedence. Iron Bar states the Tenth Circuit’s opinion violates Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 440 U.s. 668, 679 (1979). In Leo Sheep, the Supreme Court held that the United States could not create public access via constructing a road across two checkerboarded public land sections without exercising its power of eminent domain across adjacent private parcels. Iron Bar also argues the UIA does not implicitly preempt state trespass claims The Tenth Circuit’s decision effects a taking of Iron Bar’s private property by allowing others an easement to the airspace above it.
- Second, Iron Bar argues that Corner Crossing presents a question of profound legal and practical importance. This law firm agrees. There are vast expanses of checkerboarded public and private land throughout the West. Much of this land is used in conjunction with private land for cattle grazing. Clarity on when and how checkerboarded public land may be accessed by recreators may have a widespread impact on the management of property holdings, ranching operations, and grazing allotments in the West.
Conclusion
Whether the United States Supreme Court will accept the Corner Crossing Case is still undetermined. However, you can track progress of the case on its docket and review the list of SCOTUS cases to see if the Supreme Court will accept the case. You can also check back here for future updates.
