220 U.S. 506 (1911)
The defendants were indicted for grazing sheep on the Sierra Forest Reserve without having obtained the permission required by the regulations adopted by the Secretary of Agriculture.1 The indictments referenced Rule 45, which had been promulgated to regulate occupancy and use of the reservation and to preserve the forests.2
In 1897, Congress passed additional legislation.3 It allowed proper and lawful uses subject to rules and regulations established by the Secretary of Agriculture.4 The 1897 act further provided that violations of the act or the Secretary's rules and regulations would be punished as prescribed in the Revised Statutes.5
The defendants demurred to the indictments on the ground that the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 was unconstitutional, in so far as it delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture power to make rules and regulations and made a violation thereof a penal offense.6 Their demurrers were sustained by the lower court.7
The Government brought the case to the Supreme Court under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, which allows a writ of error where the decision was based upon the invalidity of the statute.8 Lower federal courts had been divided on whether violations of the Secretary's regulations constituted a crime.9
Prior to the indictments, the Act of February 1, 1905, had authorized the Secretary to collect fees for the use of forest resources, with revenues to be applied toward forest expenses.10
Whether the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 is unconstitutional insofar as it delegates to the Secretary of Agriculture power to make rules and regulations and makes a violation thereof a penal offense?11
Congress may delegate to executive officers administrative authority to make rules and regulations.12 Those rules fill up the details of a statute declaring a general policy and standard.13 Congress may provide that violation of those regulations constitutes a crime punishable as fixed by Congress.14
Yes. The Forest Reserve Act of 1891 and the 1897 legislation authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to make rules regulating occupancy and use of forest reserves to protect the forests and secure favorable water flows.15 The defendants were indicted for grazing sheep on the Sierra Forest Reserve without the permission required by Rule 45 promulgated under that authority.16 The statute itself provided that violations of the rules and regulations would be punished as prescribed in the Revised Statutes.17
This arrangement conferred administrative functions to address local conditions rather than delegating legislative power, as Congress had established the general framework and fixed the penalty.18
The Forest Reserve Act of 1891 is constitutional; the delegation of authority to the Secretary of Agriculture is valid.19
Whether the Secretary of Agriculture was authorized by statute to require permits and charge fees for grazing sheep on forest reserves?20
The statute authorizes the Secretary to regulate the occupancy and use of forest reserves, including by requiring permits for grazing, and the 1905 Act separately authorizes charging fees for the use of forest resources with revenues applied to forest expenses.21
Yes. The 1897 act required that any use of the reserves for proper and lawful purposes such as grazing must comply with the Secretary's rules and regulations.22 Rule 45 required a permit for grazing sheep on the Sierra Forest Reserve.23 The Act of February 1, 1905 authorized the Secretary to collect fees for the use of forest resources, with the fees intended to prevent excessive grazing and to cover management expenses, and revenues were to be covered into the Treasury.24
The Secretary of Agriculture was authorized by statute to require permits and to charge fees for grazing sheep on forest reserves.25