Passed
215 Yea211 Nay5 Not voting1/2 required
HJRES-105-119
Became Public Law No: 119-49.
Sponsored by Julie Fedorchak (R-ND)
What it does
This law uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to cancel the Bureau of Land Management's "North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan," which was issued on January 14, 2025. The CRA allows Congress to nullify federal agency rules through a joint resolution passed by both chambers and signed by the President. The cancelled plan, which governed how federal public lands in North Dakota would be managed for uses such as energy development, grazing, recreation, and conservation, now has no legal force or effect.
Who benefits
Oil, gas, and mineral extraction companies operating on or near affected federal lands in North Dakota, who may have faced new restrictions under the plan. Ranchers and livestock operators who use federal lands for grazing and may have faced tighter grazing limits. State of North Dakota and local governments that prefer state-level land management authority over federal direction. Hunting and off-road vehicle recreation groups that may have opposed conservation-oriented restrictions in the plan.
Who is hurt
Conservation and environmental organizations that supported the plan's land protections. Wildlife and biodiversity interests, as the plan may have included habitat protections that are now nullified. Outdoor recreation businesses (e.g., hiking, wildlife tourism) that benefit from conservation-oriented land management. Tribal nations with treaty rights or cultural interests in the affected lands who may have had input incorporated into the original plan. Future federal land managers, who are barred by the CRA from issuing a "substantially similar" rule without new congressional authorization.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the BLM's North Dakota plan imposed overly restrictive land-use rules that would have curtailed energy production and ranching on federal lands critical to the state's economy. They contend that the plan was finalized in the final days of the prior administration — a practice critics call "midnight rulemaking" — leaving insufficient time for public and congressional review, and that the CRA is the appropriate constitutional mechanism for Congress to reassert oversight over agency rulemaking. They further argue that land management decisions affecting North Dakota communities should reflect local economic priorities rather than federal agency preferences.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the BLM resource management plan underwent years of environmental review, public comment, and stakeholder input before being finalized, and that its cancellation eliminates durable protections for wildlife habitat, water resources, and cultural sites on federal public lands. They contend that blocking the rule also triggers the CRA's "substantially similar" prohibition, which prevents the agency from issuing comparable protections in the future without an act of Congress — effectively locking in less protective land management indefinitely. They further argue that the disapproval bypasses the normal notice-and-comment rulemaking process that would otherwise govern any replacement plan.
Constitutional context
The Congressional Review Act rests on Congress's broad authority over federal agencies under Article I and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18). BLM land management plans governing public lands are also subject to post-Loper Bright (2024) heightened judicial scrutiny, meaning courts would independently assess whether the original plan exceeded BLM's statutory authority — though the CRA disapproval renders that question moot for this specific plan.
Checks and balances
Congress gains direct authority over federal land management policy by nullifying the BLM rule; the primary check is the President's signature (already obtained), and future rulemaking on substantially similar matters requires new congressional authorization under the CRA.
Historical precedent
Congress has used the CRA to disapprove numerous BLM land management rules, including the BLM Planning 2.0 rule in 2017, which similarly cancelled a broad federal land-use planning framework through a joint resolution of disapproval.
Passed