Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 818

529US3

Unit: $U57

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

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

743

Opinion of the Court

§ 315f (authorizing Secretary, “in his discretion, to examine
and classify any lands . . . which are more valuable or suitable
for the production of agricultural crops . . . or any other use
than [grazing]”); §§ 1712, 1752(c) (authorizing renewal of per-
mits “so long as the lands . . . remain available for domestic
livestock grazing in accordance with land use plans” (em-
phasis added)). The Secretary has consistently reserved the
authority to cancel or modify grazing permits accordingly.
See supra, at 735–736 (collecting CFR citations). Given
these well-established pre-1995 Secretarial powers to cancel,
modify, or decline to renew individual permits, including the
power to do so pursuant to the adoption of a land use plan,
the ranchers’ diminishment-of-security point is at best a mat-
ter of degree.

Third, the new deﬁnitional regulations by themselves do
not automatically bring about a self-executing change that
would signiﬁcantly diminish the security of granted grazing
privileges. The Department has said that the new deﬁni-
tions do “not cancel preference,” and that any change is
“merely a clariﬁcation of terminology.” 60 Fed. Reg. 9922
It now assures us through the Solicitor General that
(1995).
the deﬁnitional changes “preserve all elements of prefer-
ence” and “merely clarify the regulations within the statu-
tory framework.” See Brief in Opposition 13, 14.

The Secretary did consider making a more sweeping
change by eliminating the concept of “suspended use”; a
change that might have more reasonably prompted the
ranchers’ concerns. But after receiving comments, he
changed his mind. See 59 Fed. Reg. 14323 (1994). The De-
partment has instead said that “suspended” AUMs will

“continue to be recognized and have a priority for addi-
tional grazing use within the allotment. Suspended use
provides an important accounting of past grazing use for
the ranching community and is an insigniﬁcant adminis-
trative workload to the agency.” Bureau of Land Man-