Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 814.0

529US3

Unit: $U57

[09-26-01 12:19:03] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 728 (2000)

739

Opinion of the Court

make the rangeland management program “more compatible
with ecosystem management,” “streamline certain adminis-
trative functions,” and “obtain for the public fair and reason-
able compensation for the grazing of livestock on public
lands.”
58 Fed. Reg. 43208 (1993) (Proposed Rule). The
amendments in ﬁnal form emphasize individual “steward-
ship” of the public land by increasing the accountability of
grazing permit holders; broaden membership on the district
advisory boards; change certain title rules; and change ad-
ministrative rules and practice of the Bureau of Land Man-
agement to bring them into closer conformity with related
Forest Service management practices. See 60 Fed. Reg.
9900–9906 (1995).

Petitioners Public Lands Council and other nonproﬁt
ranching-related organizations with members who hold graz-
ing permits brought this lawsuit against the Secretary and
other defendants in Federal District Court, challenging 10 of
the new regulations. The court found 4 of 10 unlawful.
929
F. Supp. 1436, 1450–1451 (Wyo. 1996). The Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court in part, upholding three of the
167 F. 3d 1287, 1289 (CA10 1999). Those three (which
four.
we shall describe further below) (1) change the deﬁnition of
“grazing preference”; (2) permit those who are not “engaged
in the livestock business” to qualify for grazing permits; and
(3) grant the United States title to all future “permanent”
range improvements. One judge on the Court of Appeals
dissented in respect to the Secretary’s authority to promul-
gate the ﬁrst and the third regulations. See id., at 1309–
1318. We granted certiorari to consider the ranchers’ claim
that these three regulatory changes exceed the authority
that the Taylor Act grants the Secretary.
528 U. S. 926
(1999).

II
A

The ranchers attack the new “grazing preference” reg-
ulations ﬁrst and foremost. Their attack relies upon the