Technical corrections only. v5 incorporates the public law number, approval date, and legislative history, reflecting its status as an enacted law, and removes signature placeholders. No substantive policy changes were made to the resolution's text.
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 "North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan".
- Sponsor
- Rep. Fedorchak, Julie [R-ND-At Large]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 11, 2025
Bottom line
Congress used the Congressional Review Act to nullify a Bureau of Land Management rule regarding resource management in North Dakota, preventing the agency from reissuing a similar rule without new legislation.
What it actually does
This joint resolution, enacted as Public Law 119-49, formally disapproves a specific rule issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) concerning the "North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan." By utilizing the Congressional Review Act (CRA), this resolution nullifies the BLM rule, rendering it without force or effect. A key consequence of CRA disapproval is that the BLM is generally prohibited from reissuing a substantially similar rule without new statutory authorization from Congress.
Proponents argue
Proponents of this resolution argue that the BLM's rule was an instance of federal overreach, detrimental to local economic interests, or inconsistent with the needs of North Dakota's communities and industries. They contend that congressional disapproval is a necessary exercise of oversight to ensure accountability and prevent burdensome or inappropriate regulations, thereby restoring local control and promoting economic activity.
Opponents contend
Opponents of the resolution (and proponents of the original BLM rule) would argue that the rule was the result of a comprehensive, expert-driven process designed to ensure sustainable and balanced resource management for North Dakota's public lands. They contend that congressional disapproval undermines sound scientific and administrative decision-making, potentially harming environmental protections, long-term planning, and the public interest by creating regulatory uncertainty or reverting to less effective prior policies.
The bill text is exceptionally brief and clear, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its direct action within moments.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves...
Disapproval of BLM North Dakota Resource Management Plan Rule
This provision formally disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on January 14, 2025, which established a Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for its North Dakota Field Office. By enacting this joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), the BLM's rule is immediately nullified and rendered without legal effect. This action also prevents the BLM from issuing any new rule that is substantially similar to the disapproved plan unless Congress explicitly authorizes it through subsequent legislation.
Supporters argue
Supporters of the resolution argue that the BLM rule was either economically burdensome, environmentally misguided, or an example of federal overreach, and its disapproval restores appropriate balance or local control over land use decisions in North Dakota, benefiting industries and communities.
Critics contend
Opponents of the resolution (proponents of the BLM rule) would argue that the rule was developed through a comprehensive process to ensure sustainable and balanced resource management, and its nullification disrupts long-term planning and potentially harms environmental protections or other public interests by reverting to outdated policies.
Tradeoffs
This resolution navigates the tension between congressional oversight and agency expertise, as well as competing visions for land use and resource management in North Dakota. It prioritizes congressional control and potentially local economic interests over the agency's administrative process and potentially broader environmental or long-term planning goals.
While the resolution explicitly states the disapproved rule "shall have no force or effect," the full implication of acting under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code (the Congressional Review Act, or CRA), is that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is also prohibited from issuing a new rule that is "substantially the same" as the disapproved rule. This restriction is not explicitly stated in the resolution itself but is a statutory consequence of the CRA.
Official Title and operative clause: "Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code... and such rule shall have no force or effect."
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice, as the resolution relies on existing statutory authority (the CRA) whose full implications are understood by reference to that statute, rather than needing to be reiterated in the resolution itself. It's a legal consequence rather than a direct legislative command within the resolution.
Case for: Proponents of the CRA argue that this 'no substantially similar rule' provision provides a powerful and lasting check on executive branch overreach, ensuring that agencies are truly accountable to Congress for significant regulatory actions and cannot simply re-issue a disapproved rule with minor tweaks.
Case against: Critics of the CRA argue that this provision can create a regulatory vacuum, preventing agencies from adapting to new information, scientific advancements, or evolving public needs. They contend it can effectively freeze policy in place, hindering effective governance and potentially requiring new, specific legislation to address issues that an agency is otherwise equipped to handle.
Estimated impact: This provision prevents the BLM from re-attempting the specific resource management plan for North Dakota without new legislation, potentially impacting future land use decisions for years and requiring a more complex legislative solution if policy changes are desired.