H.J.Res. 140 became Public Law 119-85 on April 27, 2026. Its operative text is one sentence: "Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN (88 Fed. Reg. 6308 (January 31, 2023)), and such rule shall have no force or effect."

The order it voided had closed 225,504 acres of Superior National Forest land in Cook, Lake and Saint Louis Counties, in northeastern Minnesota, to new mineral and geothermal leasing for twenty years.

How It Passed

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN-8) introduced the resolution on January 12, 2026, with four cosponsors. The Census Bureau's district-to-county relationship file for the 119th Congress puts all three of the counties named in the order — Cook, Lake and St. Louis — wholly inside Minnesota's 8th district, his own.

Both tallies were narrow. The House passed it on January 21 "by the Yeas and Nays: 214 - 208 (Roll no. 38)," under a closed rule the Rules Committee reported the day before. The Senate agreed to the motion to proceed on April 15 by 51-49, and passed the resolution on April 16 "by Yea-Nay Vote. 50 - 49. Record Vote Number: 84."

One step in the Senate record is worth noting. On April 15 it carries two entries about whether the resolution was eligible for the Congressional Review Act's fast track at all. One reads: "Point of order that the measure is not entitled to expedited procedures under the Congressional Review Act raised in Senate." The other: "Motion to table the point of order that the measure is not entitled to expedited procedures under the Congressional Review Act agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 48. Record Vote Number: 82." That is the whole of what the record says about it.

What Public Land Order 7917 Had Done

The order was published at 88 FR 6308 on January 31, 2023, over the signature of Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior. It opens: "By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(c), it is ordered as follows".

What it withdrew, and from what, is specific. The lands were "hereby withdrawn from disposition under the United States mineral and geothermal leasing laws, including the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., as amended), the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351 et seq., as amended), Section 402 of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, 16 U.S.C. 520, and 16 U.S.C. 508b." That is the leasing regime. The order says nothing about mineral entry or the General Mining Law of 1872, and its paragraph 2 states that the withdrawal "does not alter the applicability of laws governing the use of National Forest System lands other than the geothermal and mineral leasing laws." The lands "would remain subject to laws authorizing the disposal of mineral materials, as defined by 36 CFR 228, subpart C."

The stated purpose, in the order's own words, was "to protect and preserve the fragile and vital social and natural resources, ecological integrity, and wilderness values in the Rainy River Watershed, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, the Mining Protection Area, and the 1854 Ceded Territory of the Chippewa Bands in northeastern Minnesota from adverse effects of mineral and geothermal exploration and development." It adds: "The purpose of the withdrawal is also to protect the health, traditional cultural values, and subsistence-based lifestyle of the Tribes that rely on resources in the region, such as wild rice, which are particularly susceptible to adverse impacts associated with mineral exploration and development." The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness itself is a designated wilderness in the Superior National Forest. The U.S. Code's list of wilderness areas gives its authority as "Pub. L. 88-577, §3, Sept. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 891; Pub. L. 95-495, §3, Oct. 21, 1978, 92 Stat. 1649."

The water-quality reasoning behind the withdrawal is not in the order. It is in the notice of the application that produced it, published at 86 FR 58299 on October 21, 2021, when the Forest Service asked the Secretary of the Interior for the withdrawal. That notice says the resources named "are threatened by potential future sulfide mining." It goes on: "Development of sulfide-bearing mineral resources present in the withdrawal area could lead to permanently stored waste materials and other conditions upstream of the BWCAW and the MPA with the potential to generate and release effluent with elevated levels of acidity, metals, and other potential contaminants. Failure of required mitigation measures, containment facilities, or remediation efforts at mine sites and their related facilities could lead to irreversible degradation of this key water-based wilderness resource."

Who decided what is worth keeping straight. The Forest Service filed the application and was the lead agency for the environmental assessment; the BLM published the application notice and the public land order, and was "a cooperating agency for the NEPA analysis"; and, as the 2022 assessment notice puts it in one line, "The Secretary of the Interior is the decision-maker for the requested withdrawal." The resolution Congress passed describes the order as a rule "submitted by the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior," which is the capacity in which it reached Congress under the Congressional Review Act.

How H.J.Res. 140 Cancelled It

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 through 808, lets Congress stop a rule by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval: "A rule shall not take effect (or continue), if the Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 802, of the rule."

Section 802(a) prescribes the wording, and it does so by definition rather than by instruction: for purposes of that section, "the term “joint resolution” means only a joint resolution introduced in the period" the section sets out, "the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: “That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the ____ relating to ____, and such rule shall have no force or effect.”" H.J.Res. 140 uses exactly that. The phrase "null and void" appears nowhere in the chapter or in the resolution. The nearest thing to it is section 801(f), which supplies the retroactive effect in different words: "Any rule that takes effect and later is made of no force or effect by enactment of a joint resolution under section 802 shall be treated as though such rule had never taken effect."

The Act also bars a re-run. Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(2), a rule stopped this way "may not be reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the same as such a rule may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule."

The chapter does not reach every agency document. Section 804(3) says the term "rule" has the meaning given in 5 U.S.C. 551 "except that such term does not include" three categories, the first of which is "any rule of particular applicability." Public Land Order 7917 applies to a list of named townships in three named counties. The Senate record shows the eligibility objection raised and tabled 51-48, and no more than that; the resolution became law.

The Effect: Leasing, Not Mining

What the withdrawal blocked is what its removal restores. The Forest Service's own description of the proposed action is precise about the mechanism: "The withdrawal would restrict the BLM from processing or issuing new hardrock prospecting permits and mineral leases on National Forest System lands in the withdrawal boundary." H.J.Res. 140 gives that order "no force or effect," and 5 U.S.C. 801(f) has a voided rule "treated as though such rule had never taken effect," so the restriction it describes no longer operates.

Several things the withdrawal never touched are unchanged by its removal. It "would not prohibit ongoing or future exploration or mining extraction operations on valid existing rights, as determined by the BLM," and it did not reach non-federal land: "State, county, and private mineral interests could continue to exercise their ownership rights." Nor did it alter "access to private inholdings, federal mineral material operations (sand, gravel, and dimension stone), or management of other forest resources such as timber, wildlife, and recreation."

A disapproval resolution grants nothing of its own. Its whole operative text is the sentence at the top of this page, and that sentence disapproves a rule. Leases, mine plans and environmental reviews are separate decisions, each taken on its own record: the 2024 termination notice shows the BLM rejecting "the preference right lease application submitted by Twin Metals," separately rejecting "the mine plan of operations," and separately terminating the environmental impact statement.

The Context: Twin Metals Minnesota

The BLM set out the sequence in a 2024 Federal Register notice terminating the environmental impact statement for the Twin Metals Project. The EIS "would have analyzed the potential impacts of issuing a proposed new preference right lease (MNES 57965) and approving a mine plan of operations for that lease and an existing lease (MNES 1352) held by Twin Metals Minnesota (Twin Metals) in the Superior National Forest in Lake and St. Louis counties, Minnesota." The BLM published its notice of intent to prepare that EIS on June 30, 2020.

The same notice records what followed, and it keeps the two agencies' acts apart: "In October 2021, the USDA Forest Service submitted an application to withdraw the lands in question from disposition under the United States mineral and geothermal leasing laws. The BLM published a notice of its receipt of that application in the Federal Register (86 FR 58299), which segregated the lands from the operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, and the BLM subsequently rejected the preference right lease application submitted by Twin Metals in accordance with 43 CFR 2310.2(d)." Then: "In January 2022, the Department of the Interior cancelled two hardrock mineral leases held by Twin Metals, including lease MNES 1352, because the leases were improperly renewed. Because Twin Metals did not have an underlying land use authorization, the BLM subsequently rejected the mine plan of operations." Public Land Order 7917 followed on January 31, 2023, and the EIS was formally terminated in December 2024.

The Forest Service stated the demand side plainly in 2022: the withdrawal was needed "because the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have seen and can reasonably anticipate increasing interest within the private sector for developing the copper-nickel ore minerals in the Duluth Complex that may adversely impact the Rainy River watershed."

Key Sources

Drafted from primary source documents by LegislationPatch's automated research pipeline, then reviewed, verified, and edited by , Editor. Every figure and citation is checked against the official text before publication. See our editorial standards and AI disclosure.