Public Lands Council v. Babbitt
146 L. Ed. 2d 753, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 3134, 529 U.S. 728 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Secretary of the Interior possesses broad statutory authority under the Taylor Grazing Act to issue regulations that prioritize rangeland health and align grazing privileges with modern land use plans, even if such changes reduce the long-term stability historically associated with grazing permits.
Facts:
- Historically, ranchers freely grazed livestock on vast, publicly owned rangelands in the American West.
- By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, increased competition for scarce forage and water led to overgrazing, violent 'range wars,' and severe environmental degradation, culminating in the Dust Bowl.
- In 1934, Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act to stop injury to public lands, provide for their improvement, and stabilize the dependent livestock industry.
- The Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to issue grazing permits, giving preference to landowners engaged in the livestock business who were near or within a grazing district.
- For decades, the Interior Department administered these permits by quantifying grazing privileges in 'animal unit months' (AUMs), which ranchers came to regard as a stable interest attached to their private 'base property.'
- Despite the Act, rangeland conditions remained unsatisfactory, leading Congress to pass the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976, mandating comprehensive land use planning based on principles of 'multiple use' and 'sustained yield.'
- In 1995, the Secretary of the Interior promulgated new regulations aimed at accelerating rangeland restoration, which altered the definitions of grazing privileges, permit eligibility, and ownership of range improvements.
- Public Lands Council, an organization representing ranchers who held these grazing permits, challenged the legality of the new regulations.
Procedural Posture:
- Public Lands Council sued the Secretary of the Interior in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, challenging the validity of new grazing regulations.
- The District Court (the trial court) found four of the challenged regulations to be unlawful.
- The Secretary of the Interior, as the defendant-appellant, appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court) reversed the District Court in part, upholding three of the regulations the lower court had struck down.
- Public Lands Council, as the petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision regarding those three regulations.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the 1995 Interior Department regulations—which (1) redefine 'grazing preference' to be a priority position tied to land use plans rather than a quantified amount of forage, (2) remove the requirement that permit applicants be 'engaged in the livestock business,' and (3) grant the United States title to future permanent range improvements—exceed the authority granted to the Secretary of the Interior by the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No. The 1995 regulations do not exceed the authority granted to the Secretary of the Interior by the Taylor Grazing Act. The Act's mandate to 'adequately safeguard' grazing privileges is expressly qualified by the need for consistency with the statute's broader conservation purposes and by the clear statutory language stating that a permit creates no 'right, title, interest, or estate' in the land. The Secretary has broad discretion to determine how to balance the Act's goals of stabilizing the livestock industry and protecting public rangelands. Tying grazing privileges to land use plans is a reasonable exercise of this discretion, consistent with subsequent congressional direction in FLPMA. Similarly, the Act's text distinguishes between 'stock owners' (who are eligible for permits) and those 'engaged in the livestock business' (who receive preference), making the regulatory change on eligibility permissible. Finally, the Secretary's authority to authorize range improvements implies the lesser power to set conditions for them, including the terms of title ownership.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
No. The concurring opinion agrees that the regulations are not facially invalid under the Taylor Grazing Act but writes separately to emphasize two points. First, the Court's holding rejects only a facial challenge to the regulations themselves; an individual permit holder could still bring an 'as-applied' challenge if the Secretary's specific application of the new rules fails to 'adequately safeguard' their grazing privileges in practice. Second, the petitioners did not raise a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act that the Secretary's departure from prior rules was 'arbitrary and capricious,' leaving that potential avenue for challenging the regulations open in future cases.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the broad administrative discretion of the Secretary of the Interior over public land management and decisively characterizes grazing permits as privileges, not vested property rights. It subordinates the economic stability of ranchers, a key original purpose of the Taylor Act, to the government's evolving and superseding goals of environmental protection and ecosystem management. The ruling solidifies the legal framework allowing federal agencies to adapt land use policies to modern ecological principles, even when it disrupts long-standing economic expectations of historical users of public lands.
Unlock the full brief for Public Lands Council v. Babbitt