Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN.
Engrossed on 1/26/26
Overview
This joint resolution exercises Congress's authority under the Congressional Review Act to nullify a Bureau of Land Management rule that withdrew federal lands from mineral entry and leasing in three Minnesota counties. The resolution targets Public Land Order No. 7917, which affects federal lands in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Minnesota. By invoking the disapproval mechanism established in chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, Congress seeks to reverse the administrative action taken by the Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management. The resolution represents a direct congressional intervention in federal land management policy for a specific geographic area, effectively reopening lands that were previously withdrawn from certain uses under the challenged rule.
Legal References
- Chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code (Congressional Review Act)
- Public Land Order No. 7917
- 88 Fed. Reg. 6308 (January 31, 2023)
Core Provisions
The resolution contains a single operative provision that disapproves the Bureau of Land Management rule published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2023, at 88 Fed. Reg. 6308. This disapproval is executed pursuant to the Congressional Review Act framework codified in chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code. The resolution explicitly declares that the disapproved rule shall have no force or effect, which under the Congressional Review Act means the rule is treated as though it never took effect. The resolution does not create new programs, authorize appropriations, or establish implementation timelines beyond the immediate nullification of the challenged rule. The effect is retroactive to the extent permitted by the Congressional Review Act, restoring the legal status quo that existed before the Bureau of Land Management issued Public Land Order No. 7917.
Key Points
- Disapproves BLM rule relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for federal land withdrawal in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Minnesota
- Declares the rule published at 88 Fed. Reg. 6308 shall have no force or effect
- Invokes Congressional Review Act authority under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code
- Prevents the agency from reissuing the rule in substantially the same form without subsequent congressional authorization
Legal References
- 5 U.S.C. chapter 8 (Congressional Review Act)
- 88 Fed. Reg. 6308
Implementation
Implementation responsibility falls primarily on the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior, which must cease enforcement of Public Land Order No. 7917 and restore the previous management regime for the affected federal lands. Under the Congressional Review Act, once a joint resolution of disapproval is enacted, the agency that issued the rule must treat it as void and cannot reissue the same or substantially similar rule without explicit congressional authorization. The Bureau of Land Management must update its land status records, notify affected stakeholders, and resume processing applications for mineral entry, leasing, or other activities that were prohibited under the withdrawn rule. No specific funding mechanisms are established because the resolution nullifies rather than creates regulatory obligations. The resolution does not impose new reporting requirements, though the agency may need to report on the restoration of previous land management practices through existing channels.
Legal References
- 5 U.S.C. § 801(b)(2) (prohibition on reissuance)
Impact
The primary beneficiaries of this resolution are mining companies, mineral exploration firms, and other commercial interests seeking access to federal lands in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Minnesota, for resource extraction activities. Local governments and communities that support resource development may also benefit from increased economic activity. Conversely, environmental organizations, tribal nations with interests in the affected lands, and communities concerned about mining impacts face adverse effects from the nullification of land protections. The resolution imposes minimal administrative burden on federal agencies beyond the need to update land management records and resume processing previously prohibited applications. Cost estimates are not provided, but the resolution likely reduces federal administrative costs associated with maintaining the land withdrawal while potentially increasing costs related to processing mineral applications and conducting environmental reviews for proposed activities. The resolution contains no sunset provisions; its effect is permanent unless Congress or the agency takes subsequent action to reimpose land withdrawals through new legislation or rulemaking with congressional approval.
Key Points
- Direct beneficiaries: mining and mineral extraction industries, resource development advocates
- Adversely affected: environmental conservation groups, tribal interests, communities opposing mining
- Reopens federal lands to mineral entry and leasing activities
- Eliminates protective land withdrawal established by Public Land Order No. 7917
Legal Framework
The constitutional basis for this resolution rests on Congress's plenary authority over federal property under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, combined with the legislative power granted under Article I. The Congressional Review Act, codified at chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, provides the specific statutory framework enabling Congress to review and nullify agency rules through expedited procedures. This statute establishes special parliamentary procedures that limit debate and prevent filibusters in the Senate, facilitating congressional oversight of executive branch rulemaking. The resolution's effect is to nullify the regulatory action taken by the Bureau of Land Management, restoring the previous legal regime governing the affected federal lands. Under the Congressional Review Act, the disapproved rule is treated as though it never took effect, and the agency is prohibited from reissuing the same or substantially similar rule without subsequent congressional authorization. The resolution does not directly preempt state or local law but affects the federal regulatory landscape within which state and local governments operate. Judicial review of the resolution itself would be limited to constitutional challenges, as the Congressional Review Act provides Congress with broad authority to disapprove agency rules.
Legal References
- U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (Property Clause)
- U.S. Constitution, Article I (Legislative Powers)
- 5 U.S.C. §§ 801-808 (Congressional Review Act)
- 5 U.S.C. § 805 (judicial review limitations)
Critical Issues
The resolution raises significant policy tensions between resource development and environmental conservation on federal lands. Constitutional concerns are minimal given Congress's broad authority over federal property and the established framework of the Congressional Review Act, though challenges could arise regarding the procedural requirements for Congressional Review Act resolutions. Implementation challenges include determining the precise legal status of any actions taken under the now-nullified rule, addressing pending applications or permits that were denied based on the land withdrawal, and managing stakeholder expectations during the transition. The resolution may create unintended consequences by preventing the Bureau of Land Management from addressing legitimate conservation concerns through similar rulemaking without obtaining explicit congressional approval, potentially hampering adaptive land management. Opposition arguments emphasize environmental protection, tribal sovereignty concerns, watershed protection for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, and the precedent of congressional micromanagement of land management decisions. Supporters argue for local economic development, resource independence, and congressional prerogative to check executive overreach. The resolution's prohibition on reissuing substantially similar rules creates a significant constraint on future administrative action, potentially requiring legislative solutions to address conservation needs that the original rule attempted to meet.
Key Points
- Tension between resource extraction interests and environmental conservation priorities
- Potential impacts on Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness watershed protection
- Tribal sovereignty and cultural resource concerns in affected counties
- Precedent for congressional intervention in specific land management decisions
- Constraint on agency flexibility to address future conservation needs through rulemaking
Legal References
- 5 U.S.C. § 801(b)(2) (prohibition on substantially similar rules)
Sponsors
Roll Call Votes
On Passage RC# 38
214 Yea
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR208 Nay
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD9 Absent
RDDDDDRRRCalendar
Jan 20
3:00 PM