The opinion argues that Public Land Order 7917 — which withdrew more than 225,000 acres in northern Minnesota from mineral development — was issued administratively without congressional debate and blocked access to potentially significant critical mineral deposits. It urges Congress to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify such public land orders, noting the CRA was used to rescind 22 rules in the 119th Congress and reduce regulatory costs by more than $130 billion. Rep. Pete Stauber introduced a CRA resolution to overturn the Minnesota PLO; the House passed it and the Senate has a limited window to act.
Reclaiming Public Lands: Why Congress Should Use the CRA to Overturn Public Land Order 7917
For decades, presidents have used public land orders to withdraw large swaths of federal land from multiple use and development without a congressional vote. In 2023, the Biden administration issued Public Land Order 7917, withdrawing more than 225,000 acres in northern Minnesota from mineral development — an area experts call a "world-class" deposit with significant copper‑nickel and platinum‑group metal potential.
What Happened
With a single signature, the Department of the Interior effectively sequestered an area roughly five times the size of Washington, D.C., halting a planned development that proponents argued could supply critical minerals used in everyday products and national defense. The decision came despite opposition from some members of Congress, local residents, and mineral developers who favored responsible development and local economic opportunity.
Why It Matters
The federal government owns about 640 million acres — roughly 28% of the United States — and these lands contain many of the natural resources essential to the modern economy. Historically, federal lands have been managed for multiple uses, including responsible resource development. Critics argue that using public land orders to lock up land circumvents normal congressional oversight and public debate, removing jobs, investment, and access to strategic minerals.
The Congressional Review Act: A Tool For Oversight
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) allows Congress to nullify agency rules that it finds harmful. Although PLOs are issued administratively, they have sweeping public and economic effects and can be treated as rules subject to CRA scrutiny. The CRA was historically underused, but during the 119th Congress lawmakers rescinded 22 rules using the CRA, actions proponents say reduced regulatory burdens by more than $130 billion.
Current Action
This month, Rep. Pete Stauber (R‑Minn.) introduced a CRA resolution to nullify PLO 7917. The House has passed the resolution. Supporters argue this action would not only overturn the Minnesota PLO but would also bar future administrations from issuing substantially similar orders. Unlike ordinary legislation, CRA resolutions are not subject to a Senate filibuster, and Congress has a limited window — generally 60 legislative days — to act.
Impact and Stakes
Supporters say repealing the PLO would reopen access to critical minerals, restore regional jobs and investment, and reaffirm Congress's constitutional role in major land‑use decisions. Critics of the repeal argue that protecting sensitive lands can be necessary for environmental, cultural, or conservation reasons. The debate highlights a broader question about the proper balance between executive flexibility and congressional oversight in managing public lands.
Bottom line: The CRA offers Congress a fast, legally grounded route to review and, if lawmakers agree, reverse sweeping public land orders. The Senate now has an opportunity to decide whether major land‑use policy belongs primarily in the legislative branch.
Authors: Paige Gilliard is an attorney in the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Environment and Natural Resources practice group. John Nagle is a federal policy manager at PLF.
Help us improve.
