Rancher Seeks Supreme Court Review in Wyoming Corner Crossing Case

High Court Petition Filed

RAWLINS, Wyo. — Five groups are backing Elk Mountain Ranch owner Fred Eshelman in his push for the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower-court ruling that upheld public access through corner crossing. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year decided that four Missouri hunters did not trespass when they crossed at the corners of Eshelman’s ranch in Carbon County to reach public land.

Eshelman argues the hunters trespassed by passing through the airspace above his land, even though they did not step on private property. On Monday, several ranching and property-rights groups filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to overturn the decision.

Land Access at Stake

At the center of the dispute is access to millions of acres of public land that are “corner locked.” Public and private parcels meet at checkerboard corners, leaving no direct route without passing over private property boundaries.

If Eshelman prevails, as many as 2.4 million acres in Wyoming and 8.3 million acres across the West could remain inaccessible. The hunters argue that allowing landowners to control access would give them exclusive use of public land.

The 10th Circuit ruling applies to six states in its jurisdiction—Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Kansas—but leaves uncertainty for other Western states. “The outcome of this case affects 150 million acres of public and private land,” attorney John Gabel Connors wrote in a filing for Montana landowners.

Property Rights Arguments

Supporters of Eshelman argue that the appeals court decision amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property rights. The court rejected that view, citing the 1885 Unlawful Inclosures Act, which prevents landowners from blocking access to public land in checkerboarded areas.

Eshelman’s allies disagree, saying the ruling wrongly treats corner crossing as a legal easement without compensation. They contend that such a “taking” violates constitutional protections for property owners.

The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence argued the case cuts against long-standing principles of property ownership, citing English common law. “[T]he ‘poorest man’ in the meanest hovel can deny entry to the King,” attorney John Eastman wrote.

Ranching Concerns

Ranching groups warn that corner crossing could bring new burdens. The Wyoming Stock Growers Association, Wyoming Wool Growers Association and Montana Stockgrowers Association said ranchers could face stress on livestock, increased costs, and liability issues.

They pointed to past court rulings, including the Leo Sheep and Camfield cases, to argue that implied easements do not exist at common corners. In their view, the appeals court created legal uncertainty and undermined established property boundaries.

Ranchers also raised practical concerns, including potential livestock losses, trash on the land, and new challenges for state and federal agencies responsible for land management.

A National Question

The checkerboard land pattern stems from 19th-century federal railroad land grants. Today, disputes over public access at corners remain unresolved. Some landowners argue Congress should address the issue by purchasing easements rather than leaving it to the courts.

With competing claims of property rights and public access, supporters of Eshelman say the Supreme Court must step in. They argue only a nationwide ruling can bring clarity to an issue that affects millions of acres and land users across the West.