•  
  •  
 

Abstract

As disputes over public land access intensify, “corner crossing” (the act of stepping from one parcel of public land to another at a shared corner with private property) has ignited legal and political battles across the West. At stake is not just the meaning of trespass, but the public’s right to enjoy land it lawfully owns. This Article argues that corner crossing is lawful and should be recognized as such under existing property law principles. It situates the modern corner-crossing controversy within a broader historical and doctrinal framework, tracing its roots to the Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 and the legacy of exclusionary tactics used to monopolize public resources.

While property law has traditionally emphasized the right to exclude, this Article argues that such rights cannot be weaponized to defeat lawful public access. Drawing from a range of doctrines including airspace rights, unjust enrichment, and equity, this Article shows how courts and legislatures can clarify the law without overturning settled understandings of property rights. Through analysis of key cases, including the recent Tenth Circuit ruling in Iron Bar Holdings, LLC v. Cape, this Article demonstrates that existing legal tools already disfavor formalistic barriers that render public land functionally private. I

t concludes by urging Congress and state legislatures to adopt clear statutory guidance, while calling on courts to reject proximity-based monopolies that deny the public meaningful land access. At its core, this debate is not only about property law; it is about whether public land remains genuinely public in practice, not just in theory.

Download

Share

COinS