Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Public Lands Council v. Babbitt

United States Supreme Court
529 U.S. 728 (2000)


Facts

The U.S. secretary of the interior (secretary) (defendant) was granted decision-making authority over the permitting process for livestock grazing by the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (Act), 43 U.S.C. §§ 315 et seq. The U.S. Department of the Interior’s grazing regulations allowed the secretary to cancel grazing permits and reduce each permit’s animal unit month (AUM) grazing allocation. The Act authorized the secretary to reclassify and withdraw land used for livestock grazing. However, the Act required the secretary to adequately safeguard grazing privileges in a manner that was “consistent with the purposes and provisions” of the Act. The Act’s purposes included both livestock-industry stabilization and overgrazing prevention. The Act also stated that grazing permits did not create a “right, title, interest or estate” in or to grazing lands. In 1995, the grazing regulations were revised to define “grazing preference” in reference to a priority, rather than a number of AUMs. The revised regulations also defined the term “permitted use” as forage allocated by or under the guidance of a land-use plan. Public Lands Council and other nonprofit ranching organizations (plaintiffs) filed suit against the secretary and others (defendants), challenging the regulations for failing to safeguard grazing privileges. The district court ruled that some of the regulations were unlawful. The court of appeals reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (O’Connor, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.