Defendant's Attorney: United States District Attorney's Office in Las Vegas

Description: Las Vegas, Nevada civil litigation lawyers represented the Plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief.

Wild Horse Education v. United States Department of Interior refers to a ongoing legal case filed by Wild Horse Education (WHE) and other plaintiffs against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the US Department of Interior.

This lawsuit challenges the BLM's plan to round up wild horses in Nevada, arguing that it violates the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WHA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The plaintiffs contend that the BLM has not adequately developed Herd Management Area Plans (HMAPs) or updated existing ones, relying instead on outdated information and agreements favoring livestock interests rather than on science-based management for wild horse populations.
The case is currently in federal court in Nevada and has progressed to the stage of cross motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs argue that the BLM's actions are "arbitrary and capricious" because they authorize wild horse removals without proper planning or considering the environmental impacts.

Previous rulings in related cases, including one won by Wild Horse Education at Pancake in 2024, have affirmed that the BLM had illegally delayed creating management plans and that their decisions must consider the long-term health of the herds and rangelands. The Pancake decision, in particular, could set a precedent for future BLM wild horse management practices nationwide.

This lawsuit challenges the BLM's plan to round up wild horses in Nevada, arguing that it violates the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WHA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The plaintiffs contend that the BLM has not adequately developed Herd Management Area Plans (HMAPs) or updated existing ones, relying instead on outdated information and agreements favoring livestock interests rather than on science-based management for wild horse populations.
The case is currently in federal court in Nevada and has progressed to the stage of cross motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs argue that the BLM's actions are "arbitrary and capricious" because they authorize wild horse removals without proper planning or considering the environmental impacts.

Previous rulings in related cases, including one won by Wild Horse Education at Pancake in 2024, have affirmed that the BLM had illegally delayed creating management plans and that their decisions must consider the long-term health of the herds and rangelands. The Pancake decision, in particular, could set a precedent for future BLM wild horse management practices nationwide.

Outcome: The Plaintiffs prevailed and sought attorney fees.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: