The case of Public Lands Council v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior in 1999 revolved around a dispute over federal regulations concerning grazing on public lands. The Public Lands Council (PLC), an organization representing ranchers who leased federal land for grazing, challenged new rules implemented by the Department of Interior that altered traditional practices and gave more power to government officials overseeing these leases. The PLC argued that these changes exceeded the authority granted by the Taylor Grazing Act and other relevant statutes. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Babbitt with a 9-0 decision stating that his actions were within his legal rights as Secretary of Interior under those laws. This ruling upheld increased governmental control over public lands used for livestock grazing.

In the dissenting opinion for Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, Justice Scalia argued that the Secretary of Interior's new regulations regarding grazing on public lands exceeded his statutory authority and were therefore invalid. He contended that these rules fundamentally altered traditional property rights without clear congressional authorization to do so. Specifically, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "grazing district" and "grazing permit," arguing that they had historically been understood in a way which granted ranchers more secure access to federal land than what was provided under the new regulations. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for deferring too much to administrative agencies' interpretations of statutes they are charged with administering (a principle known as Chevron deference), suggesting this approach undermines judicial responsibility to interpret laws independently.