Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47)
51 Yea47 Nay2 Not voting1/2 required
SJRES-89-119
Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8395)
Sponsored by Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a November 2024 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule that amended the Buffalo Field Office's resource management plan to make all federally managed coal in that Wyoming planning area unavailable for future leasing. If enacted, the resolution would restore the 2015 resource management plan, which did allow coal to be made available for leasing. The BLM adopted the 2024 amendment after a federal court ruled it had failed to adequately evaluate the climate impacts of coal leasing under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Who benefits
Coal mining companies and their investors who hold or seek leases in the Buffalo Field Office planning area. Wyoming state and local governments that receive a share of federal coal royalty revenues. Coal miners and related workers in the Powder River Basin region who depend on continued coal extraction. Railroads and other transportation companies that move coal from the region. Coal-fired power plant operators and, indirectly, electricity ratepayers in regions supplied by Powder River Basin coal.
Who is hurt
Environmental and conservation organizations that supported the coal leasing ban. Communities and individuals who may be affected by climate change impacts linked to coal combustion. Landowners and wildlife interests in the Buffalo Field Office area who benefit from reduced surface disturbance. Renewable energy developers who compete with coal in electricity markets. Future federal administrations and the BLM, which would lose the ability to maintain the 2024 rule — and under the CRA, could not issue a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the BLM's 2024 rule effectively imposed a permanent coal leasing ban on a significant portion of the Powder River Basin — one of the nation's most productive coal regions — without clear congressional authorization to do so, raising concerns under the major questions doctrine established in West Virginia v. EPA (2022). They contend the rule eliminated thousands of potential jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local royalty revenues in Wyoming, and that Congress, not an executive agency, should make decisions of such sweeping economic consequence for the region.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the BLM's 2024 rule was not a unilateral policy choice but a court-ordered response to the agency's failure to comply with NEPA's environmental review requirements, meaning nullifying it would simply return the agency to a legally deficient posture. They contend that reopening federal coal leasing in the Buffalo Field Office would lock in decades of additional greenhouse gas emissions from a single planning area, undermining federal climate commitments, and that the CRA's prohibition on substantially similar future rules would prevent the BLM from ever conducting the court-mandated environmental review in a compliant way.
Constitutional context
The Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and the Necessary and Proper Clause underpin federal authority over public land resource management. Under West Virginia v. EPA (2022), agency rules of vast economic and political significance require clear congressional authorization; the BLM's decision to make all coal unavailable for leasing across an entire planning area could face scrutiny under this doctrine. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts would independently review BLM's statutory interpretation rather than deferring to the agency.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by nullifying the executive agency's rule; the CRA also strips the BLM of the ability to issue a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization, limiting future executive branch discretion in this area.
Historical precedent
Congress has used the Congressional Review Act to nullify multiple BLM land-use rules, most notably the BLM's 2016 Stream Protection Rule, which was overturned via CRA joint resolution in 2017.
Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47)