United States v. Grimaud

Supreme Court of the United States · Administrative Law

Administrative LawDelegationAdministrative RegulationsPublic Landsnondelegationadministrative rulesforest reservesSecretary of Agriculture

Facts

The defendants grazed sheep on the Sierra Forest Reserve without obtaining the permission required by regulations adopted by the Secretary of Agriculture. They challenged the validity of the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 and related statutes insofar as those laws authorized the Secretary to make rules governing use of forest reservations and made violations punishable. The statutory scheme stated that forest reservations were to be protected and that persons entering or using them for proper and lawful purposes had to comply with the Secretary's rules and regulations. The indictment alleged that Rule 45 was promulgated to regulate occupancy and use of the reservation and to preserve the forest.

Issue

Whether Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power by authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to make rules governing use of forest reservations and by making violation of those rules a criminal offense. Also, whether the Secretary could require permits and grazing charges under the statutory scheme.

Rule

Congress may not delegate legislative power, but it may enact a law that states the governing policy and then authorize executive officers to determine facts and fill up administrative details through rules and regulations that carry the statute into effect. When Congress itself makes violation of such authorized regulations punishable and fixes the penalty, enforcement of those regulations as crimes is constitutional.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress creates the Red Mesa Federal Range in New Mexico to protect watershed conditions and preserve native vegetation. The statute authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate occupancy and use of the range, provides that persons may enter for proper and lawful purposes only if they comply with the Secretary's regulations, and states that any violation of the statute or those regulations is punishable by a fine fixed in the statute. The Secretary then adopts a rule requiring ranchers to obtain seasonal grazing permits.

A rancher grazes cattle on the range without a permit and argues that the rule is unconstitutional because the Secretary, not Congress, effectively created the crime. Which is the strongest response?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, Congress may not delegate legislative power, but it may declare the policy and authorize an executive officer to fill up details needed to administer the law. Criminal enforcement is permissible when Congress itself makes violation of authorized regulations an offense and fixes the penalty. Here, the permit requirement concerns occupancy and use within a statutory field defined by Congress. (Derived from United States v. Grimaud (n.d.).)