S.J. Res. 109 would invoke the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code) to disapprove the Bureau of Land Management’s Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for the Grand Staircase‑Escalante National Monument.
The joint resolution cites a Government Accountability Office letter concluding the ROD and RMP qualify as a “rule” under the CRA and declares that the agency action shall have no force or effect.
This is a narrow, statutory instrument: it does not itself write a replacement management plan or alter any underlying land law, but — if enacted — it would nullify the specific published agency decision and trigger the CRA consequence that the agency cannot reissue a substantially identical rule without explicit congressional authorization. That combination creates immediate management, legal, and operational uncertainty for stakeholders on and around the monument.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution disapproves, under the Congressional Review Act, the BLM’s January 13, 2025 Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for Grand Staircase‑Escalante and declares that publication to be without force or effect.
Who It Affects
The resolution directly affects the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management, holders of permits or authorizations issued under the RMP, public‑land users in and around Grand Staircase‑Escalante, federally recognized tribes with interests in the monument, and private parties with development or conservation interests on affected federal lands.
Why It Matters
A successful CRA disapproval both wipes out the specific agency action and bars the agency from issuing a ‘substantially the same’ rule in the future absent Congress’s express authorization, locking in a longer‑term change to how the agency can manage this set of lands and constraining its regulatory toolkit.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
S.J. Res. 109 is short and legalistic: it declares that Congress disapproves the Bureau of Land Management’s Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for the Grand Staircase‑Escalante National Monument and that the agency action has no force or effect.
The resolution anchors that disapproval to the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5), and it references a GAO opinion concluding the ROD and RMP constitute a reviewable rule under the CRA.
Under the CRA framework the practical consequence of successful disapproval is twofold. First, the particular agency action identified in the resolution is nullified — the published ROD and RMP would be treated as if Congress had revoked it.
Second, and equally consequential, the CRA prevents the agency from promulgating a new rule in “substantially the same” form unless Congress specifically authorizes it. That prohibition is not a procedural nuance: it limits the agency’s ability to restore the same management approach through ordinary rulemaking.The resolution does not itself prescribe alternative management for monument lands, allocate funding, or amend underlying statutes that govern public‑land use.
It operates solely as a disapproval instrument; the day‑to‑day management consequences depend on how the Department of the Interior and BLM respond — whether they revert to previous plans, issue interim decisions, seek congressional action, or face litigation. Because the text rests on GAO’s determination that the ROD/RMP is a “rule,” the measure also imports into the dispute the legal question — likely litigated — of whether that determination was correct and how courts should treat such disapprovals when agency documents blend planning and discretionary implementation.For stakeholders on the ground, the resolution’s effect would be immediate uncertainty rather than a detailed policy change.
Contracting parties, permittees, and applicants could see authorizations delayed or reevaluated; conservation and cultural protections established by the RMP could disappear unless reimplemented through another lawful mechanism; and the BLM would face constrained options for re‑issuing similar management directions without explicit congressional permission.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution targets the BLM’s Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for Grand Staircase‑Escalante that was issued on January 13, 2025.
It cites a Government Accountability Office letter dated January 15, 2026 (printed in the Congressional Record Feb 25, 2026, pp. S675–677) that concluded the ROD and RMP qualify as a rule under the Congressional Review Act.
S.J. Res. 109 disapproves that agency action under chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code (the Congressional Review Act), and states the action shall have no force or effect.
If enacted, the CRA’s consequences would not only nullify the specific ROD/RMP but also bar the BLM from issuing a substantially identical rule in the future without explicit congressional authorization.
The resolution does not itself create a replacement management plan, allocate new authorities, or detail operational steps for on‑the‑ground management of the monument.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Operative disapproval of the BLM action
This single clause is the resolution’s operative core: it states that Congress disapproves the BLM’s Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for Grand Staircase‑Escalante and declares that the agency action shall have no force or effect. Practically, that language seeks to invoke the CRA’s power to nullify a specified agency action once the resolution is enacted into law.
Reference to GAO opinion and Congressional Record
The text explicitly relies on a Government Accountability Office letter (January 15, 2026) printed in the Congressional Record to support the legal premise that the ROD/RMP is a 'rule' subject to CRA review. Including the GAO opinion in the resolution signals the sponsor’s attempt to foreclose procedural objections that the ROD is a non‑reviewable planning document.
Use of chapter 8 of title 5 (Congressional Review Act)
The resolution invokes the CRA as its authority, which matters because the CRA has built‑in legal effects beyond simple repeal: it both invalidates the specified rule and triggers the statutory restriction on reissuing a substantially similar rule absent Congress's explicit approval. That statutory hook is what transforms a short disapproval clause into a potentially long‑lasting constraint on agency rulemaking in this policy area.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment 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
- Parties favoring fewer regulatory constraints on use of monument lands — including prospective mineral, energy, or development interests — because nullifying the RMP removes restrictions or procedural hurdles that the plan may have imposed.
- Local and state officials who opposed elements of the RMP, since disapproval returns decision space to elected officials and may ease access for local land‑use priorities.
- Individuals or businesses holding permits or applications that were blocked or conditioned by the RMP, as the policy backdrop constraining approvals would be removed (though practical outcomes depend on agency follow‑up).
Who Bears the Cost
- Bureau of Land Management and Department of the Interior, which must manage the operational fallout, defend the GAO determination and any subsequent litigation, and decide interim management steps without the RMP as a legal foundation.
- Conservation organizations and stakeholders who relied on the RMP’s protections, because disapproval can strip regulatory conservation measures without providing alternatives.
- Federally recognized tribes with cultural or resource interests in the monument, who may lose statutory or administrative protections baked into the RMP and face a compressed or contested process for preserving their interests.
- Permittees and recreational operators who face legal and business uncertainty while the agency determines whether prior authorizations survive, are reissued, or are suspended.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between congressional oversight through the CRA — which offers a fast, definitive check on agency decisions — and the need for technically informed, durable land‑management plans crafted by an agency with on‑the‑ground expertise; using the CRA to nullify an RMP solves an accountability question but creates operational and legal instability that Congress did not itself define how to resolve.
The resolution uses the Congressional Review Act as a blunt instrument. CRA disapproval is binary: it either nullifies an identified agency action or it does not.
It does not provide a substitute management framework, funding, or a mechanism for resolving competing uses. That gap creates an immediate implementation problem for BLM managers who rely on RMPs to make day‑to‑day permitting decisions and manage resources; managers will need to choose between reverting to older plans, applying ad hoc interim measures, or seeking further direction from the Department or Congress.
The GAO’s determination that a Record of Decision and RMP counts as a 'rule' under the CRA is consequential and contestable. That legal characterization brings administrative actions that blend planning and discretionary management squarely into CRA terrain, but it also invites litigation over whether courts should defer to GAO’s view and how broadly the 'substantially the same' prohibition should be interpreted.
Finally, the CRA’s ban on reissuing substantially the same rule shifts the policy‑making locus from an agency (with technical expertise) to Congress (where political coalitions must explicitly authorize an outcome). That transfer can lock in policy outcomes but also freeze technical solutions when legislative action is slow or politically fraught.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.