Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 803

529US3

Unit: $U57

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

728

OCTOBER TERM, 1999

Syllabus

PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL et al. v. BABBITT,
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the tenth circuit

No. 98–1991. Argued March 1, 2000—Decided May 15, 2000

The Taylor Grazing Act, inter alia, grants the Secretary of the Interior
authority to divide the public rangelands into grazing districts, to spec-
ify the amount of grazing permitted in each district, and to issue grazing
leases or permits to “settlers, residents, and other stock owners,” 43
U. S. C. §§ 315, 315a, 315b; gives preference with respect to permits to
“landowners engaged in the livestock business, bona ﬁde occupants or
settlers, or owners of water or water rights,” § 315b; and speciﬁes that
grazing privileges “shall be adequately safeguarded,” but that the cre-
ation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit does not create
“any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands,” ibid. Since 1938,
conditions placed on grazing permits have reﬂected the grazing privi-
leges’ leasehold nature, and the grazing regulations in effect have pre-
served the Secretary’s authority to (1) cancel a permit under certain
circumstances, (2) reclassify and withdraw land from grazing to devote
it to a more valuable or suitable use, and (3) suspend animal unit months
(AUMs) of grazing privileges in the event of range depletion. Petition-
ers, ranching-related organizations, challenged several 1995 amend-
ments to the regulations. The District Court found four of the new
regulations unlawful. The Tenth Circuit reversed as to three of them,
upholding regulations that (1) changed the deﬁnition of “grazing prefer-
ence,” 43 CFR § 4100.0–5; (2) permitted those who are not “engaged in
the livestock business” to qualify for grazing permits, § 4110.1(a); and
(3) granted the United States title to all future “permanent” range im-
provements, § 4120.3–2.

Held: The regulatory changes do not exceed the Secretary’s Taylor Graz-

ing Act authority. Pp. 739–750.

(a) Section 4100.0–5’s new deﬁnition of “grazing preference” does not
violate 43 U. S. C. § 315b’s requirement that “grazing privileges” “be
adequately safeguarded.” Before its amendment, § 4100.0–5 deﬁned
“grazing preference” as “the total number of [AUMs] of livestock graz-
ing on public lands apportioned and attached to base property owned or
controlled by a permittee or lessee,” but the 1995 version refers only to
a priority, not to a speciﬁc number of AUMs, and it adds a new term,