United States v. Grimaud
United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1911), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The case tested the constitutionality of the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, which delegated to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (a part of the Federal Executive Branch) the power to make rules and regulations regarding the use of federal Forest Service lands and to punish violations of these rules as a criminal offense. The Court ruled, after a reargument, that such a delegation of rulemaking power was permissible because it was separate from  true legislative power (which is only vested in Congress as the legislative branch). Back story. For years, shepherds in California had witnessed the establishment of forest reserves over a span of roughly ten years. In this time, the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 was established after wealthy capitalists from the northeast failed to monopolize the ranching industry. As a result, it left shepherds with less and less land to let their sheep graze, and this did not sit well with many of them. Six years later, Congress enacted the Organic Act of 1897. This law “granted management authority to the  United States Department of the Interior, then the nation’s sole custodian of the public domain. As part of this process, rangers were hired, and regulations were set for the use of these reserves’ various resources. When in 1905 the United States Forest Service was established as part of the United States Department of Agriculture, and the nation's forests transferred to its care, the number of rangers increased again, the permitting process intensified, and the related rules and fees were published widely.” The new rules angered the shepherds, farmers, ranchers, miners, etc. especially those who were around when the  land wasn’t protected by the government. It got to a point where these members of society began to directly defy the authority of these agencies. Miners sneaked onto reserves to pan for gold, loggers secretly harvested timber, and ranchers sneaked various livestock into and out of these protected lands. The case of the United States versus Pierre Grimaud begins in what is now Oakhurst, California. Pierre was one of these agitated workers; he just wasn’t lucky enough to break the law undetected. In the early 20th-century, Pierre Grimaud – a farmer and shepherd – who, with his partner PJ  Carajous, attempted to sneak his flock of sheep into the Sierra Forest Reserve. On his endeavor to find a good spot for his sheep to graze, he was stopped by a forest ranger who asked to see Grimaud’s permit. Once it was revealed that Grimaud did not have a permit, and was essentially trespassing, the forest ranger arrested him and took him to court. The trial(s). Pierre Grimaud’s case was determined to be more complex than a simple case of trespassing. Grimaud and his lawyer rejected the charge that Grimaud’s behavior constituted a public offense against the  United States because when Congress voted in support of the relevant forest legislation and accompanying ordinances, it was acting unconstitutionally; these “rules and regulations,” they declared, were “an attempt by Congress to delegate its legislative power to an administrative officer.” If, as they alleged, such delegation was unconstitutional, then Grimaud could not have committed a crime because there was no crime to commit.” Since Grimaud made this a case involving constitutional law, it was eventually moved up to the Supreme Court where Grimaud was ruled guilty as tried. Grimaud’s claim was an obvious con, and the Court knew it , but constitutional law is difficult to navigate. Finally, after four years the Supreme Court (specifically Justice Joseph Rucker Lamar) unanimously agreed that Grimaud “did knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully pasture and graze, and cause and procure to be pastured and grazed, certain sheep (the exact number being to the grand jurors unknown) upon certain land within the limits of and a part of said Sierra Forest Reserve, without having theretofore or at any time secured or obtained a permit or any permission for said pasturing or grazing of said sheep or any part of them, as required by the said rules  and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture…” Grimaud's lawyers rejected these accusations, saying that when Congress initially voted to support the relevant forest legislation, it wasn't within their constitutional rights. Congress was supposedly delegating the power that they have over government property to an unqualified “administrative officer,” the park ranger. If this were proven to be true, then Grimaud could not have committed a crime because there was no crime to commit. Initially, jurors didn't buy this defense, and decided that Pierre was guilty. The defense then appealed, or demurred their case, which means that the case  gets turned over to the district court. After more than a year of on again off again arguments, the District Court finally ruled in favor of Grimaud, overturning the lesser court in the process. From here, the case was appealed to The Supreme Court, where the ruling was once again overturned and the final ruling said that the Forestry Act was indeed constitutional and that Pierre Grimaud had broken the law. The reason Pierre could even suggest that his being tried was unconstitutional in the first place was the final ruling in the "Field v. Clark" case. This case established  that “congress cannot delegate legislative power.” However, according to the Supreme Court, “the authority to make administrative rules is not a delegation of legislative power, and such rules do not become legislation because violations thereof are punished as public offenses.” Historical Significance. “The immediate public reaction to "Grimaud" adopted the same view of the case.” The public, in general, agreed with the Supreme Court's decision. While some of the shepherds may have hoped for more freedom to graze, their hopes weren't very high so news of Grimaud's loss in court wasn't that unexpected. The day  after the Court's decision, James Wilson said that as a result of Grimaud's case, the controversy “regarding the right to use grazing lands within the various national forests without permit from the department of agriculture will be brought to an end.” This prediction was exactly correct. In 1911, the Department of Agriculture informed Congress that “the uncertainty and unrest caused by the widespread impression that the [grazing] regulations were not enforceable ceased immediately.” Prior to "United States v. Grimaud", shepherds and farmers in California had no real reason to fear the rangers patrolling the national forest. However, after  the ruling that the rangers’ power was constitutional, the shepherds and farmers respected their authority.