I didn't think they would, because they were essentially wanting the court to treat the grazing lease as an actual conveyance of ownership, which it isn't.
But it does set out the principle, apparently, that the government can't unilaterally yank rights granted under the lease, specifically water rights, even though the lease arguably gave them the power to do so.
This sounds like a decision which takes away a great deal of power from the federal government, and that is a great thing.
Stewards of the Range has the decision, order, analysis, and press release.
The importance of this decision is its specific rejection of the position of the BLM and Forest Service that ranchers have no property rights on their grazing allotments. Although Judge Smith rejected the Hages’ claim that they owned the surface estate of their grazing allotments, they do have private property rights, i.e., water rights, 1866 Act ditch rights of way, the right to have their livestock consume the forage adjacent to their waters and ditches, and the right of access thereto. If the Government’s interference with these rights makes it impossible for the rancher to use them, the Government will be required to pay compensation for their loss.In his decision, Judge Smith made it clear that the mere fact that a rancher holds a grazing permit confers no valid property interest. However, if by revoking the Hages’ grazing permits, the Forest Service and BLM prevented the Hages from accessing and using their vested water rights, then those agencies may have taken the Hages’ water rights. Those water rights are a property right, and not a license like the grazing permits. This decision will be of great help to ranchers who have vested property rights on their allotments, such as water rights and 1866 Act ditches. However, this decision will be of little or no aid to those ranchers who have no such vested property rights on the allotments their livestock graze.