## Facts

- Defendants were locators and holders of unpatented, possessory mining claims within the Coeur d’Alene National Forest.
- The claims were located after the forest reserve was created, and no applications for patent had been filed.
- Defendants maintained and operated saloons on their mining-claim lands inside the national forest.
- Acting under authority derived from the Act of June 4, 1897, the federal government (through the Secretary charged with forest administration) issued rules and regulations governing occupancy and use of forest-reserve lands, including a requirement to obtain permits for certain uses.
- The permit requirement appeared in the published compilation of forest rules (the “Use Book”) and treated the maintenance of saloons as a use requiring prior permission.
- The United States brought a prosecution based on defendants’ operation of saloons without the required permits, alleging violations of the forest-reserve regulations.
- Defendants did not challenge the technical sufficiency of the indictment; instead, they argued (1) the statute authorizing the regulations was unconstitutional because it delegated legislative power and failed to define punishable conduct, and (2) even if valid, the regulations could not reach land within valid mining claims because the General Mining Law of 1872 granted claimants “exclusive enjoyment” of their claims.
- Defendants also argued that substantial buildings unrelated to mining were customary on mining claims and that requiring permits threatened hardship and interference with their asserted property interests.

## Issues

1. Did the Act of June 4, 1897 unconstitutionally delegate legislative power or fail to define criminal conduct by making violations of forest-reserve regulations punishable?
2. Can forest-reserve regulations requiring permits for uses such as saloons be applied to land held under valid, unpatented mining claims within a national forest, despite the Mining Law’s grant of “exclusive possession and enjoyment”?

## Decision

- The court held the Act of June 4, 1897 constitutional and found that Congress could authorize executive rulemaking to regulate occupancy and use of forest reservations and attach criminal consequences to violations of properly issued rules.
- The court held the permitting regulations could be applied to possessory mining claims within the forest reserve.
- The court rejected defendants’ claim that “exclusive enjoyment” of a mining claim authorizes any non-mining commercial use free from forest-reserve controls, and it allowed the prosecution to proceed based on operating saloons without permits.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may set the governing standard for public lands and authorize an executive officer to issue regulations to carry that standard into effect; violations of such regulations may be punished when the statute provides the rulemaking purpose and ties the regulations to that purpose.
- The Act of June 4, 1897 authorizes regulations aimed at regulating occupancy and use of forest reservations and protecting the forests; rules serving those ends are within the delegated authority.
- Mineral lands inside a forest reservation remain part of the reservation unless restored to the public domain through authorized procedures; being open to mineral location does not, by itself, remove them from forest-reserve administration.
- A mining claimant’s “exclusive possession and enjoyment” is tied to mining purposes and incidents reasonably connected to mineral development; it is not a blanket right to conduct unrelated commercial enterprises on federal land.
- Entry for prospecting, locating, and developing minerals within a forest reserve is allowed only on the condition that entrants comply with applicable forest-reserve rules and regulations, including permit requirements for non-mining uses.

## Conclusion

United States v. Rizzinelli held that Congress constitutionally authorized forest-reserve regulations under the Act of June 4, 1897 and that those regulations could require permits for non-mining commercial uses, such as saloons, even on valid, unpatented mining claims within a national forest; the defendants’ asserted “exclusive enjoyment” under the mining laws did not exempt them from the permit requirement or bar prosecution for violating the regulations.


United States v. Rizzinelli, 182 F. 675 (1910)