Congress Moves to Nullify North Dakota Land Management Plan, Voids BLM Rule Instantly

This Joint Resolution is a direct legislative veto, using a tool called the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to scrap a specific rule issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Specifically, it targets the BLM’s recent “Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan” for its North Dakota Field Office. If this resolution passes, that entire BLM rule instantly becomes void, meaning it will have no legal effect whatsoever, as outlined in the resolution’s structure which cites Chapter 8 of Title 5, U.S. Code.

The Instant Veto: How Congress Undoes Agency Work

Think of the CRA as Congress’s big red 'undo' button for agency regulations. When a federal agency like the BLM—which manages vast tracts of public land—finalizes a new rule, Congress gets a window of time to review it. This resolution is Congress saying, “Thanks, but no thanks,” to the specific management plan the BLM proposed for North Dakota. The immediate real-world effect is that whatever the BLM plan changed—whether it was how much land was open to drilling, new environmental protections, or updated grazing permits—none of that goes into effect. It’s a return to the status quo that existed before the now-rejected rule.

What This Means for North Dakota Land Use

For anyone working or living near BLM-managed lands in North Dakota—from ranchers and farmers to energy companies and outdoor enthusiasts—this is a significant move. Resource Management Plans are the blueprints for how federal land is used, balancing everything from mineral extraction and energy development to conservation and recreation. By rejecting the BLM’s latest plan, Congress is essentially preventing any new management strategies it contained from taking hold. If the rejected rule had introduced stricter environmental safeguards or limited resource extraction in certain areas, those limitations are now off the table. Conversely, if the rejected rule had opened up previously protected areas, that change is also nullified, and the land remains managed under the older, existing plan.

The Bigger Picture: Who Benefits When Rules Disappear?

This kind of action, while perfectly legal under the CRA, raises important questions about who gets to decide how public lands are managed. The BLM typically spends years developing these plans, relying on scientific data, public input, and administrative expertise. When Congress uses a joint resolution to wipe the slate clean, it’s a powerful assertion of legislative oversight. The people who benefit are those who strongly opposed the specifics of the rejected BLM rule—likely entities that preferred the previous, less restrictive management regime or those who felt the new plan was too burdensome. However, if the rejected rule contained necessary updates for conservation or public safety, then the public loses those protections. This resolution doesn't replace the rule with a new one; it simply eliminates the one the agency created, leaving the existing management plan in place, regardless of whether it’s outdated or insufficient for current needs.