S.104 is a narrowly drafted bill that declares two Presidential memoranda dated January 6, 2025 — one covering Gulf of Mexico/Atlantic/Pacific areas and a second covering the Bering Sea — to have "no force or effect." In plain terms, the legislation attempts to erase the legal effect of those executive actions that withdrew large portions of the outer Continental Shelf (OCS) from consideration for oil and gas leasing.
The practical consequence is uncertainty rather than an immediate programmatic change: the bill does not amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, does not direct the Department of the Interior or BOEM to resume lease sales, and contains no implementation timeline or funding. For industry, coastal states, agencies, and environmental stakeholders, the bill would remove an executive-level barrier to leasing but leave the next administrative steps and legal questions unresolved.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill states that two specified Presidential memoranda withdrawing areas of the outer Continental Shelf from oil and gas leasing "shall have no force or effect." It does not add new leases, alter statute, or include instructions to federal agencies to initiate or restart leasing processes.
Who It Affects
Offshore oil and gas operators, service and supply companies, coastal states with offshore resources (e.g., Gulf states, Atlantic seaboard states, Alaska), and federal agencies charged with OCS management — primarily the Department of the Interior and BOEM — are the immediate stakeholders. Environmental groups and coastal economies that opposed withdrawals are also directly affected.
Why It Matters
By stripping the legal force of those memoranda, the bill removes an executive-level barrier that had blocked future lease sales over large offshore areas. But because it provides no administrative direction, it creates operational and legal uncertainty about whether, how, and when leasing could actually resume.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
S.104 contains two simple operative moves: it names the two Presidential memoranda issued January 6, 2025 (one covering Gulf/Atlantic/Pacific areas and the other covering the Bering Sea) and declares them to have "no force or effect." That is the full extent of the bill’s substantive text. It does not attempt to rewrite the statutory leasing regime in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), nor does it insert new licensing, environmental, or revenue rules.
Because the bill speaks only to the memoranda’ legal effect, implementation depends on how federal agencies interpret and act on the change. If the memoranda are nullified by statute, agencies may treat the areas as no longer withdrawn from consideration; still, BOEM and the Interior Department would need to follow the OCSLA-required steps (resource assessments, programmatic planning under a five-year leasing program, Environmental Impact Statements, consultations with states and tribes) before holding lease sales.The bill does not direct agencies to take any of those steps, so nullification would remove an immediate prohibition but not automatically restart leasing.
That gap means industry and states would face a window of regulatory discretion and potential litigation: companies could press for programmatic action, affected parties could sue over process or jurisdiction, and courts could be asked to interpret whether the statutory nullification requires affirmative agency conduct.Finally, S.104 includes no appropriations, no timeline for administrative action, and no language addressing existing leases, permits, or contractual commitments. Those omissions mean some legal and practical questions — including whether previously suspended administrative steps resume and how courts should treat actions taken pursuant to the memoranda — are left for agencies and judges to sort out.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill targets two specific Presidential memoranda dated January 6, 2025: one withdrawing Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic, and Pacific OCS areas; the other withdrawing Bering Sea OCS areas.
Its sole substantive command is to declare those memoranda to have "no force or effect" — there are no further operative provisions in the text.
S.104 does not amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, so it does not itself authorize new lease sales or change the statutory prerequisites (planning, NEPA, consultations) required before leasing occurs.
The bill contains no funding, deadlines, or enforcement mechanism directing the Department of the Interior or BOEM to take any particular administrative steps after the memoranda are rescinded.
Because it is silent on existing administrative acts, S.104 neither explicitly vacates nor reinstates prior permits, lease sales, or agency decisions that may have been influenced by the memoranda.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short name: "Overturn Biden’s Offshore Energy Ban Act." This is purely stylistic and has no substantive legal effect, but it signals the bill’s intent and frames the legislative purpose for stakeholders and courts that consider legislative history.
Nullification of Memorandum covering Gulf, Atlantic, and Pacific areas
Declares the Presidential memorandum titled "Memorandum on the Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States Outer Continental Shelf from Oil or Natural Gas Leasing" dated January 6, 2025, and relating to Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic, and Pacific areas, to have "no force or effect." Practically, this strips statutory backing from that executive withdrawal, but it does not direct Interior or BOEM to reinstate any specific programmatic actions or reverse downstream agency determinations that occurred independently of the memorandum.
Nullification of Memorandum covering Bering Sea areas
Mirrors paragraph 1 for the separate January 6, 2025 memorandum relating to the Bering Sea. The practical implication is identical: the statutory nullification removes the memoranda’s legal authority for withdrawal, but it leaves the existing statutory framework, agency procedures, and environmental review obligations intact and unanswered as to next steps.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy 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
- Offshore oil and gas companies and prospect developers — Removing the memoranda’s legal effect reopens the possibility that those companies can seek inclusion of previously withdrawn areas in future leasing programs and pursue lease sales once agencies complete required statutory steps.
- Energy service and supply sectors (rig operators, fabrication yards, logistics suppliers) — If agencies move toward leasing, these businesses stand to gain contracts and increased demand tied to exploration and development activity.
- Coastal governments in producing regions (e.g., Gulf states, some Alaska jurisdictions) — State and local governments that collect certain revenues tied to offshore activity or that rely on jobs in offshore sectors may see potential fiscal and employment upside if leasing prospects improve.
Who Bears the Cost
- Environmental organizations and coastal advocacy groups — Nullifying the withdrawals undercuts a layer of executive protection for offshore areas and increases the risk of future leasing and development that these groups oppose, forcing continued advocacy and litigation costs.
- Department of the Interior and BOEM — Agencies face additional workload and potential litigation as stakeholders press for (or contest) programmatic steps; they must also interpret how to proceed administratively without further statutory guidance.
- Coastal tourism and fisheries-dependent communities concerned about environmental risk — Those economic sectors face elevated exposure to pollution and ecosystem risk if leasing and development resume, though effects depend on later agency decisions and mitigation measures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is practical: the bill seeks to undo an executive withdrawal intended to prevent leasing, thereby opening the door to future offshore development, but it does so without directing the administrative machinery needed to deliver or regulate that development — creating a choice between reversing executive climate and conservation policy and imposing administrative and legal uncertainty on agencies, states, industry, and affected communities.
S.104 is intentionally minimal: it nullifies two Presidential memoranda but leaves untouched the statutory leasing framework that governs the outer Continental Shelf. That minimalism creates the principal implementation challenge.
Stripping the memoranda’s effect does not shortcut the multi-step requirements of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, NEPA, or intergovernmental consultations. Agencies therefore retain discretion (and procedural obligations) to decide whether to move forward with programmatic planning, and courts may be asked to resolve disputes about whether the statutory nullification imposes any affirmative obligation to act.
A second tension lies in legal interpretability. The bill’s phrasing — declaring documents ‘‘no force or effect’’ — is straightforward, but courts could differ over the downstream consequences for agency actions that relied on the memoranda, or whether Congress’ action raises separation-of-powers questions in particular contexts.
Finally, by providing no timelines, appropriations, or environmental safeguards, the bill shifts the locus of political and legal conflict from the executive withdrawal to a protracted administrative-and-judicial contest over how, and whether, the federal government should proceed.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.