Passed
211 Yea208 Nay12 Not voting1/2 required
HJRES-104-119
Became Public Law No: 119-48.
Sponsored by Troy Downing (R-MT)
What it does
This law uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule — specifically the "Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment" — that was issued on November 20, 2024. The CRA allows Congress to overturn federal agency rules by passing a joint resolution of disapproval. By voiding this rule, the land management policies it established for the Miles City Field Office area in eastern Montana have no legal force or effect.
Who benefits
Energy companies (oil, gas, and coal operators) and ranchers who hold or seek grazing leases on BLM-managed land in eastern Montana, as the 2024 plan may have imposed new restrictions on those activities. State of Montana, which may prefer fewer federal land-use restrictions. Off-road vehicle users and other recreational users whose access may have been limited by the plan. Local governments and businesses in eastern Montana that depend economically on resource extraction and ranching on federal lands.
Who is hurt
Conservation and wildlife organizations that supported the 2024 plan's land protections. Hunters, anglers, and outdoor recreationists who may have benefited from habitat protections in the plan. Tribal nations with cultural or treaty interests in the affected lands who may have had input incorporated into the 2024 plan. Future generations who would have benefited from any conservation measures the plan established. BLM staff whose planning work — a multi-year process — is nullified.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the 2024 BLM plan imposed overly restrictive land-use rules on eastern Montana that threatened ranching livelihoods and energy development on federal lands that local communities depend on economically. They contend that the Congressional Review Act exists precisely to give elected representatives the ability to check agency rulemaking that exceeds what Congress intended, and that the BLM's plan represented an unaccountable bureaucratic decision that bypassed the will of affected communities and their elected representatives.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the 2024 BLM plan was the product of years of public input, environmental review, and stakeholder engagement under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and that nullifying it via the CRA eliminates those protections without any replacement plan. They contend that under the CRA's "no substantially similar rule" provision, BLM may be legally barred from issuing comparable land protections in the future without new congressional authorization, leaving the affected lands in a permanent regulatory gap.
Constitutional context
Federal management of public lands rests on the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2), which gives Congress broad authority over federal territory. The CRA mechanism itself is grounded in Congress's Article I authority to oversee executive agency rulemaking. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any future BLM rules covering this area would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference, making the "no substantially similar rule" constraint even more consequential.
Checks and balances
Congress gains direct authority over this land management decision by nullifying the executive agency's rule; the primary check is that BLM retains general management authority over the land but is legally constrained from issuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization under the CRA.
Historical precedent
Congress has used the Congressional Review Act to nullify BLM land-use rules before, most notably in 2017 when it overturned the BLM's Planning 2.0 rule, which had similarly updated resource management planning processes across federal lands.
Passed