First, a word about Challis: Headlines coming out of Idaho newspapers say an “Injunction was denied at Challis.” Those headlines are not exactly true. The judge declined a motion to stop the roundup (simple Temporary Restraining Order) and allow a thoroughly briefed Preliminary Injunction motion hearing before the roundup. Idaho U.S. District Court Judge David Nye set the briefing and hearing dates after the roundup. He believed BLM when they said we were not “harmed” by the roundup and that, even if we are right that they did not do the appropriate analysis, they did their own analysis (not in public record) and “no harm done.” 

Challis is the last viable herd in the state of Idaho. We will continue this case and work to get the horses returned and a lawful analysis completed.

Challis was on the schedule to begin September 10. They began today., the 9th WHE has a representative onsite.

At the fire line looking into the HMA

Author note: We prepared this explainer because BLM has filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking review of the federal preliminary injunction that halted its planned gather of the Carter Reservoir, Buckhorn, and Coppersmith herds.

The appeal has raised understandable questions from our readers about what an appeal of a preliminary injunction does—and does not—mean. This explainer addresses the current court order, the limited issue before the Ninth Circuit, and why the underlying lawsuit continues regardless of the outcome of the preliminary-injunction appeal.

Unless the district court or the Ninth Circuit modifies, stays, or vacates the order, BLM may not proceed with the enjoined removals.

This might seem like a long article. Context is really important and advocates should truly know what each court battle entails. Herds are different even though many of the issues appear to be the same. BLM districts do not all handle the paperwork the same. Even courts are different. We urge you to learn as much as you can. 

Near SE corner of the the HMA looking NE into the burn.

The photos in the article are all post the Vya fire. No winter feed area was lost and wild horses are exactly where they should be this time of year. For the horses, the fire created little impact. If, like at Riddle in Oregon, BLM is going to assert a “fire emergency” as new information, there is no such emergency. There was even less impact to Carter than there was to Riddle.

Background

Wild Horse Education (WHE), Carter Reservoir Mustangs, Inc. (CRMI), and the individual plaintiffs have obtained a significant, but temporary, court order protecting the Carter Reservoir, Buckhorn, and Coppersmith wild-horse herds. The federal court issued a preliminary injunction barring BLM from implementing its challenged gather plan while the lawsuit is litigated

A Federal Court Has Paused the Roundup

The injunction stops BLM from carrying out the planned removals in the three northeastern California Herd Management Areas (HMAs) while the court considers the merits of the lawsuit.

BLM’s scheduled plan called for removing 470 horses from Carter Reservoir, 273 from Buckhorn, and 113 from Coppersmith during the September 2026 gather period. The order bars implementation of that gather until the underlying case is adjudicated.

This is not a final ruling that every one of the challenged BLM decision in the underlying case is unlawful. It is protective, interim relief intended to preserve the status quo while the court resolves the case. That matters because capture, removal, separation of family bands, fertility treatment, and placement in holding can create consequences that a later ruling cannot fully undo.

The lawsuit challenges more than a single roundup. It challenges a management framework shaped by multiple BLM decisions, including herd-area boundaries, habitat assumptions, Appropriate Management Levels (AMLs), and the 2025 gather and population-control plan. Wild Horse Education (WHE) and Carter Reservoir Mustangs, Inc. (CRMI) contend that BLM reduced historic wild-horse habitat and then relied on the resulting smaller management area and lower population figures to justify further removals without doing required analysis and consideration of detriment to the herd.

Above: A week before the roundup was originally scheduled to begin, a fire broke out in the area. The winds kept the fire from moving far west through Carter or very far the now designated Herd Area of New Year’s Lake. The fire stayed primarily on the East side of the ridge. For those of you unfamiliar with the area, the green is US Fish and Wildlife lands; lands where the Sheldon mustangs once roamed before the “zero out” roundups of the last decade. 

Why Carter is in the Spotlight

The Carter Reservoir horses are not interchangeable with another herd. Carter is accurately described as an isolated herd with distinctive lineage, history, and social structure.

According to the approved BLM  planning framework the roundup would reduce Carter to roughly 25 animals (low AML). The plan also contemplated fertility-control treatment for remaining “horses” still left undefined, reportedly including long-acting immunocontraception such as GonaCon and gelding. Plaintiffs contend that this combination—an extremely small remnant population and aggressive fertility control—will,  not might, place the herd at risk.

The central concern is not simply whether some horses remain on the range. A viable wild population needs sufficient breeding animals, genetic diversity, reproduction, and resilience to withstand ordinary pressures. Even BLM’s own geneticist, Gus Cothran, recommend a minimum breeding population of 150. Severe winters, drought, disease, predation, injury, or accidents can have disproportionate effects on a herd of only a few dozen animals.

A very small breeding population can increase the risk of inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity over time. Fertility control applied broadly to the remaining mares may also limit recruitment when the herd has the least ability to absorb losses. Reintroducing horses from elsewhere may increase head counts, but it may alter the identity and genetic continuity of the existing Carter herd. Our wild horses and burros are integral to the land they stand, says the law. The history of the unique herd is vital to it’s identity and needs to be protected.

Foal post-fire

The Central Legal Questions

The underlying lawsuit will examine whether BLM’s decisions were lawful, adequately supported, and made through the environmental-review and public-process requirements that apply to federal agency actions.

• Plaintiffs’ claims include challenges under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and related federal administrative-law principles.
• Plaintiffs contend that approximately 280,000 acres historically designated for wild horses were removed from Carter’s usable management framework without a current, science-based analysis of what the range can support, and simply because someone in the BLM office that day decided those acres would only be for livestock use.
• The lawsuit questions whether an AML of roughly 25–35 horses is biologically defensible for an isolated population with genetic concerns.
• Plaintiffs argue that BLM recognized the need to revise the Herd Management Area Plan and correct errors in earlier planning documents, but approved major removals before completing that updated planning and public process they (BLM) recognized needed to be performed since 1989.
• The case also raises concerns that fertility control combined with drastic removals could impede recovery, and that BLM treated wild horses as unsustainable while considering expanded or year-round livestock authorization without a complete environmental analysis.

The district court will ultimately determine whether BLM’s conclusions are supported by the administrative record and whether the agency followed the procedures and analysis requirements the law requires before making decisions that will, without a doubt, permanently alter federally protected wild-horse herds.

BLMs appeal of the temporary order will not impact the underlying lawsuit.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Above: Horses and Cows in the dry lakebed eating, as they always are this time of year.

What a Preliminary Injunction Means

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary form of temporary relief. To obtain one, plaintiffs generally must show a sufficient likelihood of success—or, under an applicable formulation, serious legal questions—together with likely irreparable harm without immediate relief. The court also considers the balance of hardships and the public interest.

The order does not merely postpone a decision. It reflects the court’s conclusion that allowing the gather to occur before a final ruling could create harm that a later court decision could not realistically repair, particularly where the action would remove hundreds of horses and could permanently alter a small, isolated herd.

The gather is presently prohibited. BLM cannot implement the enjoined gather plan for Carter Reservoir, Buckhorn, and Coppersmith. (BLM has appealed  the injunction is modified, stayed, or overturned

At the same time, the merits case continues. The parties continue to litigate the legality of the planning decisions that produced the gather plan. The injunction preserves the herds while that litigation proceeds; it does not decide the final case.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Above: Post fire, life goes on for all of the wild things that call the area home

Above: The cows are still out too where you would expect to see them this time of year.

What BLM’s Ninth Circuit Appeal Means

BLM has appealed the district court’s preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This is an interlocutory appeal: it concerns a temporary order entered before the district court has completed the case and issued a final judgment.

Usually a motion would be filed in the district court in front of the judge that ordered the Preliminary Injunction if “new circumstances” required a reconsideration. Even if this is an appeal on the legal basis of the order, we would expect to see some type of emergency motion filed from BLM in the next few days at the district level as well.

BLM appears to be asking the Ninth Circuit to vacate the appeal where they would have to show the judge misapplied law (as the fire did not really impact the herd). The plaintiffs will show why the district court’s temporary protection should remain in effect while the merits are decided.

If the Ninth Circuit leaves the injunction in place, BLM remains barred from carrying out the enjoined gather unless the order is later changed. If the Ninth Circuit stays, narrows, or vacates the injunction, BLM may be able to proceed to the extent the appellate order permits and no other court order applies.

Either result concerns the temporary injunction. It does not, by itself, dismiss the underlying lawsuit or finally determine whether BLM’s challenged actions are lawful. The district-court case remains pending and continues toward merits briefing, a final decision.

We agree with those of you emailing us: BLM using time and taxpayer money appealing a temporary order does raise a lot of questions as to “why.”

Why This Fight Matters

This case asks whether public wild-horse habitat can be reduced once originally set (without any actual data-based analysis), population numbers can be set at levels that are not genetically viable (again, without any real data-based analysis), and those reduced figures can then be used to justify removing the remaining horses while at the same time expanding livestock use.

It also asks whether BLM may carry out irreversible removals before completing the updated, transparent, and science-based planning process that plaintiffs contend is required.

For Carter, the stakes are especially high.

Once a distinct herd is reduced to a handful of animals, broadly subjected to fertility control, or replaced through outside introductions, a later court ruling may not be able to restore what was lost.

The preliminary injunction preserves the opportunity for the legal process to occur before irreversible management actions change the herd.

We need to fight (again) simply to maintain the status quo until the legality of BLM planning is determined.

There is no emergency need for this removal.

In fact, the permanent damage that would be done to the herd represents the exact reason there are avenues like a Preliminary Injunction to hold those actions at bay until deeper legal issues are decided.

We will defend that protection.

We will update you as this case moves forward.

Wild Horse Education (WHE) and Carter Reservoir Mustangs, Inc. (CRMI) are represented by Greenfire Law, PC of Berkley.

We thank you for being an active advocate and standing up for Freedom, Mercy and Justice. 

There are several ways you can support WHE from gift shopping to stock donations. Learn more HERE.