In the case of Kleppe v. New Mexico, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government's authority to manage and protect wild horses and burros on public lands. The state of New Mexico had argued that it had jurisdiction over wildlife within its borders, including wild horses and burros living on federal land. However, the court found that under the Property Clause of the Constitution, Congress has broad power to determine how federal property is used - including protecting wildlife residing thereon from capture by states or private parties. Therefore, it upheld a law passed by Congress called "The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act" which aimed at preventing harassment or removal of these animals from public lands as constitutional.

In the dissenting opinion for Kleppe v. New Mexico, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the federal government's power to regulate wild horses and burros on public lands was not unlimited. He contended that while Congress has broad authority under the Property Clause of the Constitution, it does not have absolute power over all activities on federally owned land. The majority decision effectively gave Congress a blank check to exercise control over state wildlife management policies whenever they intersect with federal interests in managing public lands. This interpretation could potentially undermine states' traditional authority in this area without clear constitutional or legislative mandate. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that there is no need for actual conflict between state and federal law before preemption can occur; instead, he believed such conflicts should be resolved case by case based on specific facts rather than through blanket rulings.