Pennsylvania Hunters Fight for Property Rights in Supreme Court Showdown

For legal hunters and outdoorsmen across the country, the right to enjoy private land without unwarranted intrusion is a cornerstone of our way of life. And while the majority of us are doing nothing wrong, the thought of game wardens or other legal officials entering private property on a whim has suddenly become a bone of contention for a pair of Pennsylvania hunting clubs.

On April 9, 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard a pivotal case that could redefine these rights, pitting two Clearfield County hunting clubs against the Pennsylvania Game Commission. At stake is whether game wardens can continue to enter private property without a warrant under the controversial Open Fields Doctrine, a practice that many hunters argue violates their privacy and undermines the sanctity of their land.

For members of the Punxsutawney and Pitch Pine hunting clubs, the two clubs named in the suit,  the issue is personal. Over nearly a decade between 2013 to 2021, they documented at least 22 instances where game wardens entered their properties without permission. Ignoring “No Trespassing” signs and locked gates, wardens roamed their lands, set up trail cameras to monitor activities, and issued citations for minor infractions, such as failing to carry a hunting license on person. To these hunters, the wardens’ actions felt like harassment, transforming their private retreats into spaces under constant surveillance.

“We hunt legally, we respect the land, and we follow the rules,” said a representative of the Pitch Pine Hunting Club. “But when wardens can walk onto our property unannounced, set up cameras, and treat us like suspects, it feels like an invasion. This isn’t about hiding anything—it’s about our right to privacy.”

Represented by the Institute for Justice, the clubs argue that the Open Fields Doctrine, a century-old legal principle, is outdated and incompatible with Pennsylvania’s constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. The doctrine, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1924 and reaffirmed in 1984, holds that the Fourth Amendment does not protect “open fields” beyond the immediate area surrounding a home. This lack of protection allows game wardens to enter private lands to enforce hunting laws without a warrant, even on clearly posted property.

For hunters and outdoorsmen, the Open Fields Doctrine represents a troubling overreach. In Pennsylvania, where 90% of land is subject to warrantless searches under the doctrine, legal hunters feel their property rights are under siege. The Game Commission’s authority, backed by a 2007 state Supreme Court ruling (Commonwealth v. Russo), allows wardens to treat private fields, forests, and streams as public domain for enforcement purposes. To many, this undermines the very reason they invest in private land: to enjoy nature free from intrusion.

The hunting clubs’ attorney, Joshua Windham, argued before the Supreme Court that Pennsylvania’s Constitution offers stronger privacy protections than the federal standard. He pointed to a 2024 Tennessee Supreme Court decision that rejected the Open Fields Doctrine, requiring warrants for similar searches. “If Tennessee can protect its landowners, so can Pennsylvania,” Windham asserted, urging the court to overturn the 2007 ruling and restore hunters’ rights.

Justice David Wecht appeared receptive, questioning why open fields should have no privacy protections when even temporary spaces like hotel rooms do. His line of inquiry resonated with hunters who see their land as an extension of their personal freedom—a place to hunt, camp, and connect with nature without government oversight.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission, represented by Deputy Attorney General Anthony Kovalchick, defended the doctrine as essential for wildlife protection. Kovalchick argued that wardens need unrestricted access to private lands to enforce hunting laws, prevent poaching, and safeguard species like elk. He cited examples like wardens using trail cameras to detect illegal feeding practices, framing such actions as necessary for conservation.

But hunters counter that these goals don’t justify trampling their rights. “We’re not against conservation,” said a Punxsutawney club member. “We’re the ones maintaining these lands, planting food plots, and protecting wildlife. But there’s no reason wardens can’t get a warrant if they suspect wrongdoing. Why should we be treated like criminals on our own property?”

Public sentiment aligns with the hunters. A 2022 LANDTHINK survey found that 89% of respondents opposed warrantless searches by game wardens. Across social media platforms like X, outdoorsmen have voiced frustration, warning that the doctrine could normalize broader government surveillance. “If they can walk onto your land without a warrant, what’s next?” one post read.

The Pennsylvania case is part of a growing national pushback against the Open Fields Doctrine. States like Tennessee, Mississippi, and Montana have already limited warrantless searches, recognizing that private land deserves greater protection. Nationwide, 96% of private land—1.2 billion acres—falls under the doctrine, affecting millions of hunters, farmers, and outdoor enthusiasts.

For Pennsylvania’s hunters, a favorable ruling could be transformative. Overturning the 2007 Russo decision would require game wardens to obtain warrants, aligning Pennsylvania with states that prioritize property rights. It would also send a message that legal hunters are not adversaries but stewards of the land, deserving of respect.

Conversely, if the court upholds the doctrine, hunters fear it will embolden further intrusions. “This isn’t just about hunting,” said a Pitch Pine member. “It’s about whether we can still call our land our own.”

As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court deliberates, hunters and outdoorsmen across the state await a decision that could reshape their relationship with the land. A ruling is expected in the coming months, and its impact will ripple beyond Pennsylvania’s borders, influencing how states balance wildlife enforcement with individual rights.

For now, the Punxsutawney and Pitch Pine clubs remain steadfast. “We hunt because we love the outdoors,” their representative said. “All we’re asking is to enjoy our land in peace, without someone looking over our shoulder.”