Hunt v. United States
Headline: Federal land managers may cull overpopulated deer to protect public forest lands and ship carcasses away, and the Court upholds an injunction blocking state interference while requiring carcass tags.
Holding: The Court held that federal officials may kill surplus deer on federally established forest and game preserve lands and transport carcasses outside those reserves, and that state game laws cannot bar those federal protective actions.
- Allows federal land managers to cull wildlife on federal reserves despite state game laws.
- Prevents state arrest or prosecution of people acting under federal orders on those reserves.
- Requires carcasses shipped out to be plainly tagged as killed under federal authority.
Summary
Background
The dispute involved federal officials managing the Kaibab National Forest and the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve in Arizona and local actors claiming Arizona game laws. Deer had multiplied so much that they were killing young trees and other plants and many deer starved. The Secretary of Agriculture directed the district forester to kill large numbers of deer and ship the carcasses outside the reserves after relocation efforts failed, and some state actors threatened arrests of those carrying out the federal plan.
Reasoning
The central question was whether federal officials could take these steps on federally established reserves despite state game laws. The Court held the Secretary acted within congressional authority and that the United States has the power to protect its lands from serious injury even if state game rules would otherwise limit such action. The lower court had enjoined the state actors from interfering or prosecuting people acting under federal direction, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decree with one modification requiring visible tags on carcasses shipped out.
Real world impact
The ruling means federal land managers can remove surplus wildlife to protect public forest lands and are not stopped by conflicting state game laws when acting under federal authority. People following federal orders are protected from state arrest or prosecution in this context. The decision also requires that carcasses sent outside the reserves be plainly marked to show they were killed under federal authority.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?