10th Circuit Corner Crossing Ruling: What does this mean for MT?

[MTGomer]

Is it e powered asking for a friend

The propulsion system is only available to elite members

 

[Gerald Martin]

The propulsion system is only available to elite members

Town Pump makes a nifty bean burrito power assist pack that’s cheap and effective. Recommend including a spare set of boxer briefs for the hunt after pogoing in to your spot.

 

[cgasner1]

Town Pump makes a nifty bean burrito power assist pack that’s cheap and effective. Recommend including a spare set of boxer briefs for the hunt after pogoing in to your spot.

Dead up wind?

 

[mtmuley]

Saw some giants up on that flat from the opposing mountain range over the years.



I’m not sure if I’m more excited about trying to access the ones I’ve always wanted but never had the balls to, or more disappointed all the ones I’ve already accessed and saw minimal people and nobody seemed to give AF about that everyone else will now.

Look forward to the story. mtmuley

 

[Forkyfinder]

Nice work folks.

Just as an aside, Chief Justice Swanson represented Citizens for Balanced Use at the legislature, not UPOM.

He did represent CBU, UPOM & a few legislators on a bison lawsuit.

CBU.UPOM. SFW. Some other orgs.

Really all the same interests - behind them.

 

[MTLabrador]

Gonna be a long line of guys with ladders. I'm all for access, but nothing is a secret anymore. mtmuley

Yep. Maybe the rush of everyone looking to corner hop where there’s elk visible from the road will mean a few less people actually hunting where I like to hunt. That’s my hope at least.

 

[cgasner1]

Wish where I hunt had more corners

 

[Elky Welky]

Chuck Denowh finally seemed at a loss for words. You can tell someone is really struggling when they call a very clear legal beatdown “largely academic.”

Great quotes @BuzzH

Federal appeals court sides with corner-crossing hunters in Wyoming dispute

A three-judge panel upheld a lower court’s ruling.

montanafreepress.org

 

[MTGomer]

Chuck Denowh is such a dipshit. He finally seemed at a loss for words. You can tell someone is really struggling when they call a very clear legal beatdown “largely academic.”

Great quotes @BuzzH

Federal appeals court sides with corner-crossing hunters in Wyoming dispute

A three-judge panel upheld a lower court’s ruling.

montanafreepress.org

These make great gifts. And while I am positive that he already has a few… It never hurts to have a few more.

World’s Smallest Violin (single), Anonymous Gift, Tiny Violin | Miniatures, Funny Birthday Gifts | for Best Friend, People That Complain - Etsy

Looking for the perfect gag gift or funny birthday gift? Look no further than our 3-pack of the Worlds Smallest Violin! Made of 100% resin, these tiny violins are the perfect way to show your coworkers, siblings, or anyone else that complains that you care - even if youre not really listening. And

www.etsy.com

 

[Elky Welky]

These make great gifts. And while I am positive that he already has a few… It never hurts to have a few more.

World’s Smallest Violin (single), Anonymous Gift, Tiny Violin | Miniatures, Funny Birthday Gifts | for Best Friend, People That Complain - Etsy

Looking for the perfect gag gift or funny birthday gift? Look no further than our 3-pack of the Worlds Smallest Violin! Made of 100% resin, these tiny violins are the perfect way to show your coworkers, siblings, or anyone else that complains that you care - even if youre not really listening. And

www.etsy.com

UPOM really is good at losing in court. He’s got to have a mini orchestra around.

 

[Matthew57]

Chuck Denowh is such a dipshit. He finally seemed at a loss for words. You can tell someone is really struggling when they call a very clear legal beatdown “largely academic.”

Great quotes @BuzzH

Federal appeals court sides with corner-crossing hunters in Wyoming dispute

A three-judge panel upheld a lower court’s ruling.

montanafreepress.org

We’ll remember his quote if it does go to the Supreme Court and he loses there as well.

 

[Rack Daniels]

So would it be best to cross from federal to federal? Keep the state land out of it? Or rather, find someone blocking access at the corner of federal to federal? Man if I wasn’t moving out of state and knew I had the manpower of HT and its proponents behind me I’d be so down…

Hey, that brings up another good question; do you think it played any role that these dudes were outta-staters? Would it be better if I did this as a 10th circuit resident? Because I will be…

isnt this textbook definition of conspiracy?

Would it ACTUALLY be conspiracy to commit any crimes? Or is this ultimately unbinding us from the crimes?

“Conspiracy to commit criminal trespass” by crossing one piece of public land to another… @Elky Welky

 

[Rack Daniels]

I don’t think ol Ted would be too thrilled about corner crossing on federal land… just need to see if there’s anything posted that you cannot cross right? That would imply an enclosure?

 

[teamhoyt]

In Montana I'm pretty sure it specifically defines legal access to state land. You can't fly into it, might open up a big can of worms if one corner crossed onto state.

 

[MT Super Puncher]

There's some excellent language in the opinion, specifically regarding the public's right to claim that a landowner that intentionally creates a barrier of access to public land at a corner could be civilly liable for nuisance. This would be one of the better approaches in Montana. If a landowner attempts to create an unlawful enclosure by blocking access at the corner, the public could sue them and potentially win under the logic of the 10th Circuit's ruling:

"When a landowner denies checkerboard access, he imposes a proscribable nuisance under federal law,'notwithstanding' such action may involve an entry upon the lands of a private individual.” Camfield, 167 U.S. at 525."

"The core principle of the UIA (the Unlawful Inclosures Act), as reiterated in Bergen, is that a landowner cannot maintain a barrier “which encloses public lands and prevents” access for a “lawful purpose.” Bergen, 848 F.2d at 1511–12. The barrier itself is not a UIA violation—but it becomes one when its effect is to inclose."

As someone who dabbles in the law for a day job, I agree this would be the best "low risk, high reward" tactic. I haven't read the whole 10th Cir opinion yet, but I am curious as to how the 9th Cir would approach this. The Tenth is generally more conservative than the Ninth in their rulings, and my initial impression is the 9th would be favorable to the same logic. Problem is, the 9th generally goes rogue and creates its own unique case law and interpretations distinct from the majority of the circuits for whatever reason.

I likewise do have concerns that some jack*ss will do something stupid and screw this whole thing up. If you could tee up a case at the right location with the right facts, I think this would be a fun case to argue with a pretty decent likelihood of success.

 

[Forkyfinder]

As someone who dabbles in the law for a day job, I agree this would be the best "low risk, high reward" tactic. I haven't read the whole 10th Cir opinion yet, but I am curious as to how the 9th Cir would approach this. The Tenth is generally more conservative than the Ninth in their rulings, and my initial impression is the 9th would be favorable to the same logic. Problem is, the 9th generally goes rogue and creates its own unique case law and interpretations distinct from the majority of the circuits for whatever reason.

I likewise do have concerns that some jack*ss will do something stupid and screw this whole thing up. If you could tee up a case at the right location with the right facts, I think this would be a fun case to argue with a pretty decent likelihood of success.

@MTGomer how do you feel about finding some property corners

 

[MTGomer]

I’m up for it

 

[Corndog Nation]

If 2 pieces of public land are touching, you should have access. Landowners don't own the air.

 

[Khunter]

Supreme Court declined today to hear the case. WooHoo! Time to celebrate a lasting victory for keeping public land PUBLIC.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Oct. 20, 2025



Contact:

[email protected]

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Corner-Crossing Case, Protecting Millions of Acres of Public Lands ​

Ruling highlights ongoing importance of vigilance as new challenges loom in courts and legislatures.



WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a landmark development for public land access, the U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear Iron Bar Holdings, LLC v. Cape et al., leaving in place the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals’ unanimous ruling upholding the legality of “corner crossing.” Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA), which has been at the forefront of this fight through amicus filings, grassroots advocacy, and fundraising for the hunters’ legal defense, hailed the decision as a resounding victory for all who value their right to access public lands.



That appeals court decision protected access to more than 3.5 million acres of public lands in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas, and Oklahoma, with implications for an estimated 8.3 million acres across the West. By allowing the ruling to stand, the Supreme Court has preserved public access on a significant

 

[Rack Daniels]

Supreme Court declined today to hear the case. WooHoo! Time to celebrate a lasting victory for keeping public land PUBLIC.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Oct. 20, 2025



Contact:

[email protected]

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Corner-Crossing Case, Protecting Millions of Acres of Public Lands ​

Ruling highlights ongoing importance of vigilance as new challenges loom in courts and legislatures.



WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a landmark development for public land access, the U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear Iron Bar Holdings, LLC v. Cape et al., leaving in place the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals’ unanimous ruling upholding the legality of “corner crossing.” Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA), which has been at the forefront of this fight through amicus filings, grassroots advocacy, and fundraising for the hunters’ legal defense, hailed the decision as a resounding victory for all who value their right to access public lands.



That appeals court decision protected access to more than 3.5 million acres of public lands in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas, and Oklahoma, with implications for an estimated 8.3 million acres across the West. By allowing the ruling to stand, the Supreme Court has preserved public access on a significant

Kind of. This is our best shot to settle it for the nation. Semerad said it himself in the article. But I’m still glad it’s legal over there. Lol