Silkie Perkins, the appellant, held a term grazing permit from the United States Forest Service to graze cattle on the Antelope Allotment within the National Forest System. Under her 2021 Annual Operating Instructions, she was required to remove her cattle by April 30, 2021. The Forest Service later discovered evidence that cattle bearing the appellant's and her son's brands were grazing on the Antelope Allotment and the nearby Jerome Allotment after the deadline. The agency canceled the permit, determining that the appellant was either directly involved in the unauthorized grazing or that the violations by her son's cattle could be attributed to her. Perkins filed a complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the cancellation as arbitrary and capricious. The district court granted summary judgment for the government, and Perkins appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The court addressed two primary issues: mootness and the substantive validity of the permit cancellation. First, regarding mootness, the court rejected the argument that the case was dead because the permit had expired. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court explained that a case remains live as long as the parties have a concrete interest in the outcome. Under 43 U.S.C. § 1752(c)(1), a permit holder who is in compliance with regulations is given first priority for a new permit. Because the appellant's compliance status was the very issue being litigated, a ruling in her favor would affect her priority for a new permit. The court noted it would be circular to say her alleged non-compliance stripped the court of jurisdiction to review that exact issue. Second, on the merits, the court applied the arbitrary and capricious standard under the Administrative Procedure Act. This standard is highly deferential but requires that agency findings be supported by substantial evidence. The court found that the Forest Service's determination of unauthorized grazing was supported by witness testimony and visitor logs from an adjacent cement plant. These logs showed the appellant or her agents entering the plant 22 times with descriptions like 'Silky to get cattle,' indicating she was retrieving her cattle from the grazed area. Furthermore, the court upheld the agency's decision to hold the appellant responsible for her son's violations. The Annual Operating Instructions temporarily authorized the son's cattle, and the appellant had a duty to ensure they were removed. Given the close familial relationship and the appellant's intent to pass the ranch to her son, the court found a sufficient nexus to attribute the son's unauthorized grazing to the appellant.
The district court's ruling stands, leaving the permit cancellation effective. The appellant is barred from immediate relief and must address the compliance issues to secure future permit priority. The decision clarifies that permit holders retain a concrete interest in litigation regarding their compliance status even after a permit expires, and it reinforces the Forest Service's authority to attribute violations by close family members to the primary permit holder when a nexus exists.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download