This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture and the Forest Service not to administer, implement, or enforce the Forest Service rule published at 89 Fed. Reg. 92808 (Nov. 25, 2024) — the rule titled “Law Enforcement; Criminal Prohibitions.” It declares that the cited rule “shall have no force or effect.”
The measure is narrowly drafted but consequential: by nullifying a specific Forest Service regulatory rule, it removes a regulatory criminal enforcement tool without providing replacement language or implementation guidance. That creates immediate operational questions for on-the-ground law enforcement, prosecuting authorities, and forest managers, and it raises administrative-law and retroactivity issues that could prompt litigation or require further statutory fixes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill forbids the Forest Service from administering, implementing, or enforcing the rule published at 89 Fed. Reg. 92808 (Nov. 25, 2024) and declares that rule void. It is a statutory prohibition targeted at a single Federal Register rule, rather than an amendment to the underlying statutes that authorize Forest Service law-enforcement regulations.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are Forest Service law-enforcement operations, forest supervisors and rangers who relied on the now-proscribed rule, and the Department of Justice where federal prosecutions would have been brought. Indirectly affected are visitors to National Forests, state and local law enforcement partners, and tribes with interests in federal land management and public-safety coordination.
Why It Matters
Congressional nullification of a specific agency rule is a blunt tool that changes operational authority immediately and can create enforcement gaps. Professionals in land-management, federal prosecution, and regulatory compliance should track how enforcement responsibilities will shift and whether the Forest Service or Congress proposes substitute authority or guidance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The CLEAR Act of 2025 does one thing: it tells the Forest Service it cannot enforce or carry out the agency rule published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2024, titled “Law Enforcement; Criminal Prohibitions,” and it states that the rule has no legal effect. That language operates at the regulatory level: the statute does not amend criminal statutes in the U.S. Code or other authorities that independently prohibit conduct on federal lands.
Because the bill targets the agency’s regulatory instrument rather than the statutory authority underlying it, the practical effect is to remove a specific set of regulatory criminal prohibitions from the Forest Service toolbox. In practice, that means conduct that would have been charged under that regulatory provision would no longer be chargeable under that particular Forest Service rule; enforcement of similar conduct could still proceed, however, under other federal criminal statutes, Department of the Interior or USDA authorities where applicable, or under state law where jurisdiction permits.Operationally, the change creates immediate steps for the agency if the bill becomes law.
The Forest Service would need to withdraw implementing guidance, update enforcement manuals, and notify law-enforcement partners that the particular rule is void. Prosecutors and U.S. Attorneys will need to reassess charging decisions for incidents that relied on the now-proscribed regulation.
The bill itself does not supply any transition procedures, savings clauses for pending actions, or replacement regulatory text — leaving those matters to further legislation, agency rulemaking (if authorized), or prosecutorial discretion.Finally, the bill’s narrow scope — addressing only the Forest Service and a single Federal Register entry — means other agencies’ rules remain intact and that enforcement across different categories of federal lands could become less uniform. That patchwork has practical implications for visitors, local jurisdictions, and agencies that partner on public-safety responses in and around national forests.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes it unlawful for the Forest Service to administer, implement, or enforce the rule published at 89 Fed. Reg. 92808 (Nov. 25, 2024), titled “Law Enforcement; Criminal Prohibitions.”, It declares the cited rule to have no force or effect — effectively nullifying that regulatory text rather than amending the statutory code that authorizes agency rules.
The prohibition applies only to the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture; it does not address rules issued by other federal agencies or repeal any underlying federal criminal statutes.
The text contains no replacement regulatory language, no alternative enforcement mechanism, and no implementation or transition provisions for pending or future cases.
The bill is silent about existing or pending enforcement actions and does not state whether prosecutions begun under the rule before the statute’s enactment would be affected.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This short provision gives the Act two names: the “Community Law Enforcement Authority Restoration Act of 2025” and the “CLEAR Act of 2025.” Short-title sections have no substantive legal effect beyond identifying the legislation, but the chosen name signals the sponsor’s intent to restore or prioritize local/community law-enforcement authority over the specific Forest Service regulatory approach being rescinded.
Prohibition on administration, implementation, or enforcement of the specified Forest Service rule
This is the operative clause: it forbids the Forest Service from administering, implementing, or enforcing the rule titled “Law Enforcement; Criminal Prohibitions” (89 Fed. Reg. 92808). Practically, that directs the agency to stop using that rule as a legal basis for any regulatory action, citation, or criminal charge and orders that the rule “shall have no force or effect.” Because it targets a Federal Register entry, Congress is removing the regulatory text’s legal backing rather than altering the statutes the agency may rely upon in other contexts.
Narrow targeting and consequences for enforcement and litigation
Although not a separate numbered section in the bill text, the clause’s phrasing raises three consequential legal points. First, nullifying a Federal Register rule by statute typically operates prospectively and — depending on judicial interpretation — may be applied retroactively; the bill contains no savings clause to preserve past actions. Second, because the bill does not repeal the statutory authorities that enabled the Forest Service to promulgate the rule, comparable enforcement could proceed under different legal authorities unless expressly barred. Third, the limited scope to the Forest Service means enforcement on other federal lands or by other agencies is unaffected, increasing the chance of inconsistent enforcement regimes and potential litigation over jurisdiction, charging authority, and applicability to ongoing cases.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Recreational visitors and permittees on National Forests — they would no longer face enforcement under the specific Forest Service regulatory criminal prohibitions targeted by the bill, reducing the immediate risk of citation or regulatory criminal charges tied solely to that rule.
- State and local law-enforcement agencies and prosecutors — jurisdictions that objected to federal expansion of criminal rules may see more discretion returned to local authorities to handle incidents on or near federal lands.
- Groups opposed to federal criminalization of certain conduct on public lands — the bill removes a federal regulatory lever that those groups argued expanded criminal liability or centralized enforcement.
Who Bears the Cost
- Forest Service operations and law-enforcement personnel — the agency loses a regulatory tool, must revise enforcement manuals and training, and will need to redirect how it handles violations previously governed by the rescinded rule.
- U.S. Attorneys and federal prosecutors — removing the rule may shift case selection and increase reliance on other statutes that are harder to apply, complicating charging decisions and resource allocation.
- Visitors and land managers in areas without strong state enforcement backstops — the change can produce a temporary enforcement gap or inconsistent coverage across national forests, potentially affecting public-safety outcomes and land-management objectives.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: rescinding a Forest Service regulatory criminal prohibition can restore local or community control and limit perceived federal overreach, but it also removes a uniform federal enforcement tool that can protect public safety and natural resources — a trade-off between local discretion and nationwide regulatory consistency with no clean legislative substitute in this bill.
The bill’s brevity is both a strength and a liability. It delivers a clear, narrow instruction to an executive agency, which minimizes drafting complexity, but it leaves open thorny questions that will surface immediately in practice.
First, the lack of a savings clause or transitional language means courts may have to decide whether the statute voids past regulatory actions or convictions premised on the rescinded rule, which could trigger litigation over retroactivity and due-process concerns. Second, because the statute targets only a rule and not the underlying statutory authority, similar enforcement might be pursued under other federal criminal provisions; whether that happens depends on prosecutorial strategy and the evidentiary fit of alternative statutes.
A second tension is operational: forest supervisors, rangers, and partner agencies rely on clarity in enforcement authorities for training, incident response, and interagency agreements. Striking down a rule without a replacement creates a period of legal and operational uncertainty; the Forest Service will have to decide whether to seek new regulatory authority, issue departmental guidance consistent with the statute, or defer enforcement to state and local partners.
Finally, the bill’s narrow focus on the Forest Service — leaving other agencies’ rules untouched — risks creating patchwork enforcement across federal lands, which complicates compliance messaging to the public and coordination among agencies and jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.