Federal court blocks BLM wild horse roundup in northeastern California

A federal judge in California has temporarily stopped the Bureau of Land Management from removing horses from three northeastern California herd areas this September. The ruling could reshape how BLM justifies roundup decisions by forcing the agency to account for actual herd growth data, not older assumptions.

Why it matters: - The injunction keeps horses on the range in the Carter Reservoir, Buckhorn and Coppersmith Herd Management Areas for now. - The ruling signals that BLM roundup plans can be halted when the agency’s population analysis does not match the underlying data. - The case could influence how federal land managers justify future wild horse removals under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

What happened: - The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against BLM’s planned September 2026 gathers. - U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb issued the order in case No. 2:25-cv-3252. - The order blocks BLM from removing 470 horses from Carter Reservoir, 273 from Buckhorn and 113 from Coppersmith between Sept. 1 and Sept. 30, 2026. - The court ordered defendants to stop implementing the 2025 Gather Plan to remove horses from the three herd management areas.

The details: - The court found the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. - The judge said BLM relied on an assumed annual population growth rate to support its overpopulation finding. - BLM’s own 2025 Gather Plan Environmental Assessment showed the herds’ actual growth rates had diverged from that assumption over the past 15 years. - The court found many of those yearly growth rates were negative. - The order said BLM failed to consider the actual growth rates of the horse populations at issue. - The court held that BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the APA. - The plaintiffs challenged older planning documents that set the boundaries and population limits still used to manage the Carter Reservoir herd. - The order said the applicable Appropriate Management Levels were set, modified or reaffirmed through plans dating to 1981. - The court noted BLM reduced the Carter Reservoir HMA to 23,200 acres in 1985 without analysis, rationale or discussion, while leaving the herd’s low AML unchanged. - The court allowed the plaintiffs to challenge those earlier decisions as part of the challenge to the 2025 Gather Plan. - The court declined at this stage to vacate the older plans on a standalone basis. - The judge found that vacating those older plans alone would not redress the plaintiffs’ current injury. - The court also found the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of irreparable harm. - The judge said the balance of equities and the public interest favored relief. - The order stated that the public interest favors injunctions against unlawful agency practices.

Between the lines: - The ruling is preliminary, not a final decision on the merits. - The court’s reasoning suggests BLM may face closer scrutiny when it bases herd removals on outdated population models and legacy acreage decisions. - The case also shows how older management decisions can remain legally relevant when a current plan depends on them.

What's next: - The injunction stays in place pending further proceedings. - The underlying case will continue, and the court has not yet reached a final ruling on the legality of the roundup plan. - The plaintiffs are Carter Reservoir Mustangs, Inc., Darice Massey, Wild Horse Education, Laura Leigh and Billo Michael Comola. - Greenfire Law, PC, of Berkeley, California represents the plaintiffs. - Darice Massey called the ruling a moment of relief and joy. - Laura Leigh said the order recognized that gaps in planning, data and logic matter under the law. - Jessica Blome of Greenfire Law said federal agencies must ground decisions in real data and sound reasoning.