Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 822

529US3

Unit: $U57

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

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

747

Opinion of the Court

words mean the same thing. Congress could reasonably
have written the statute to mandate a preference in the
granting of permits to those actively involved in the live-
stock business, while not absolutely excluding the possibility
of granting permits to others. The Secretary has not ex-
ceeded his powers under the statute.

The ranchers’ underlying concern is that the qualiﬁcations
amendment is part of a scheme to end livestock grazing on
the public lands. They say that “individuals or organiza-
tions owning small quantities of stock [will] acquire grazing
permits, even though they intend not to graze at all or to
graze only a nominal number of livestock—all the while ex-
cluding others from using the public range for grazing.”
Brief
for Petitioners 47–48. The new regulations, they
charge, will allow individuals to “acquire a few livestock, . . .
obtain a permit for what amounts to a conservation purpose
and then effectively mothball the permit.”

Id., at 48.

But the regulations do not allow this. The regulations
specify that regular grazing permits will be issued for live-
stock grazing or suspended use. See 43 CFR §§ 4130.2(a),
4130.2(g) (1998). New regulations allowing issuance of per-
mits for conservation use were held unlawful by the Court
of Appeals, see 167 F. 3d, at 1307–1308, and the Secretary
did not seek review of that decision.

Neither livestock grazing use nor suspended use encom-
passes the situation that the ranchers describe. With re-
gard to the former, the regulations state that permitted live-
stock grazing “shall be based upon the amount of forage
available for livestock grazing as established in the land use
plan . . . .”
43 CFR § 4110.2–2(a) (1998) (emphasis added).
Permitted livestock use is not simply a symbolic upper limit.
Under the regulations, a permit holder is expected to make
substantial use of the permitted use set forth in the grazing
permit. For example, the regulations prohibit a permit
holder from “[f]ailing to make substantial grazing use as au-
If a
thorized for 2 consecutive fee years.” § 4140.1(a)(2).