How a Once Obscure Federal Law Could Shape America’s Public Lands for Decades

The plans governing U.S. public land use usually develop slowly, the product of years—or even decades—of deliberation and input from ranchers, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, Tribes, rural residents and numerous others. In recent months, a little-known federal law has entered the conversation around how America’s public lands are managed. Typically confined to regulatory disputes, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is becoming part the discussion around the management of public lands, national monuments, and mineral development—across millions of acres of federal land.  

As debates continue on how Americans use and enjoy our public lands, policymakers are debating how and if the CRA should be used to overturn certain land management decisions made by the Department of the Interior.  

A little-known tool in federal law 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) was passed in 1996 as part of a broader effort to increase congressional oversight of federal agencies. The law allows Congress to review and potentially overturn federal agency rules through a streamlined process. If both the House and Senate pass a resolution of disapproval and the president signs it, the targeted rule is nullified. 

An additional feature of the CRA that makes it particularly powerful is that once a rule is overturned, the agency generally cannot issue another rule that is “substantially similar” without new authorization from Congress. 

Historically, the CRA has been used infrequently to reverse federal regulations—usually during the early months of a new presidential administration when policy priorities shift.  However, its use by the current Congress in the context of public land planning significantly expands how the law has typically been applied. 

How public land plans shape the landscape 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages roughly 245 million acres of public land across the United States, and the U.S. Forest Service manages another 193 million acres not by a single set of rules, but by a set of long-term plans tailored to specific areas. Much of that land is governed by long-term planning documents created under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). 

These land use plans guide how landscapes will be managed for years or even decades. They help determine where activities such as energy development, grazing, recreation, wildlife conservation, and cultural resource protection can occur. 

National monument management plans serve a similar purpose, outlining how specific protected areas will be managed to preserve their cultural, ecological, and scenic values while still allowing certain types of public access. 

Because these plans affect large areas and many different interests, they typically involve years of environmental analysis, Tribal consultation, public comment, and interagency coordination before they are finalized. 

What is a mineral withdrawal? 

Another tool sometimes used in public land management is known as a mineral withdrawal. In simple terms, FLPMA gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to withdraw certain public lands from eligibility for mining or mineral leasing for a set period of time, often up to 20 years. 

Withdrawals are often used to protect areas with important environmental, cultural, or recreational values. In some cases, they are tied to national monument designations or broader conservation initiatives.  

Like land use plans, mineral withdrawals can have long-term implications for how public lands are used and what types of development may occur. 

The emerging legal question 

Debates center on whether the CRA could apply, not only to traditional regulations, but also to certain land management decisions, including land use plans or mineral withdrawals. 

The question is whether these land management decisions qualify as “rules” under the CRA. Historically, the law has been applied primarily to regulations issued by federal agencies. Land use plans and withdrawal decisions, however, are often considered planning or policy documents rather than regulations. 

Because of this distinction, legal experts disagree about whether the CRA was intended to apply to these types of decisions. The issue has not yet been fully tested in the courts, leaving some uncertainty about how the law might be interpreted. 

Why the debate matters 

Supporters of using the CRA in this context argue that it gives Congress a stronger role in reviewing major agency decisions that affect public lands. They say it provides a way for elected lawmakers to respond quickly to policies they believe overstep agency authority. 

Critics, however, warn that applying the CRA to land use planning could alter existing planning processes that already involve years—and sometimes decades—of extensive analysis and public participation. They also note that the law’s restriction on issuing “substantially similar” rules could create long-term uncertainty about how agencies manage public lands. 

Looking ahead 

The conversation over the use of the CRA highlights an important reality: decisions about how America’s public lands are managed often sit at the intersection of law, policy, and politics—and they can shape the landscape for decades to come.