Here.
Update on Proposed Rescission of Roadless Rule: pdfs of all 2025 Tribal comments are available in Vol. III of the EIS
Here.
Here.
On August 20, 2026, USDA published a proposed rule to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which has restricted road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting across approximately 44.7 million acres of National Forest System lands for the past quarter century. The proposal would replace the existing rule’s nationwide layer of protection and return more decisions about roadless areas to individual forest plans and project-level review.
Alongside the proposed rule, USDA released a 333-page Draft Environmental Impact Statement, a cost-benefit and regulatory-flexibility analysis, and a Tribal Summary Impact Statement. (Links to these documents are below.)
Comments on the proposed rule are due September 21, 2026. The docket is FS-2025-0001.
This isn’t the first time Tribes have weighed in. USDA’s August 2025 Notice of Intent opened a scoping comment period that drew more than 220,000 comments, with about 99% opposed to the rescission. Based on the ILPC’s analysis, the comments included 42 written submissions from 38 distinct Tribal governments and organizations. Scoping comments, however, only shape what an agency studies, and a court asked to review the eventual final rule will look at the record as it stands when the agency acts. As a result, the current 30-day comment period is fundamentally different from the one in 2025, since it’s the last opportunity to place Tribe-specific evidence, legal argument, and disagreement with USDA’s reasoning into the administrative record before the rule is finalized.
The ILPC is sharing four documents to help Tribes and their staff and counsel use that opportunity
a. The first document is a list of tribal comments submitted during the fall 2025 window and found by the ILPC in response to the Notice of Intent. The document includes links to each tribe or tribal organization’s comments.
b. The second document, The Tribal Administrative Record on the Roadless Rule, is an ILPC independent empirical review of the 38 distinct Tribal comments filed in 2025. Rather than starting from USDA’s own categories, the ILPC coded the submissions and measured how often fourteen recurring themes appear, from near-universal concerns about ecological resources (94.7%), and cultural and religious interests (94.7%), to concerns raised by roughly half of commenters about consultation adequacy and enhanced Tribal governmental authority beyond ordinary consultation. It then compares that record against USDA’s 2026 Draft EIS line by line. Our finding: USDA’s Draft EIS rhetorically recognizes Tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, and trust obligations. It also concludes that full rescission, the alternative it proposes, would create the greatest potential for adverse effects on Tribal rights and interests of any alternative it studied. The gap this record exposes isn’t whether USDA heard Tribes. It’s what the agency did about what it heard.
b. The third document, Strategic Considerations for Tribal Nations in the 2001 Roadless Rule Rescission Comment Period, moves to strategy. It walks through the administrative law tools a comment filed now can use, including arbitrary and capricious review, record preservation and issue exhaustion doctrine, NEPA’s alternatives requirement, NHPA Section 106, and treaty rights claims where they apply, and explains why the strongest comments this round will do more than restate 2025 positions. The most impactful comments submitted now will name an impact, identify USDA’s specific response in the documents it published in the docket on August 20, and explain concretely why that response does or doesn’t hold up. The memo also addresses the administration’s simultaneous move to weaken the protections of NHPA Section 106 through a proposed rule that is expected to be published soon. If NHPA 106 protections are administratively weakened, Tribes will face a multiplication of interventions as decision-making is returned to the land management planning process at the individual national forest level, on top of diminished leverage under a weakened 106 regime.
The strategic considerations memo also flags a separate problem ILPC ran into directly. USDA’s Tribal Summary Impact Statement rests heavily on 29 completed (and 34 scheduled) government-to-government consultations (out of 64 Tribal requests for consultation), but the underlying consultation records aren’t in the public docket, and ILPC couldn’t locate any posted log of them. After an August 28 letter to the Forest Service’s Office of Tribal Relations went unanswered, ILPC filed a formal FOIA request the same day. Because of FOIA’s ordinary processing timeline, that request may not be resolved before the comment period closes. As it stands, Tribes and the public are being asked to evaluate USDA’s account of what it heard in consultation without being able to see the records that account is based on. That timing problem is itself worth putting directly into a comment.
Below is a full set of links to the docket, including the proposed rule, the complete Draft EIS, the Tribal Summary Impact Statement, the economic analysis, and the ILPC-generated documents referred to above.
Additional Resources
Link to the Docket for the 2001 Roadless Rule Rescission
List of Tribes with Comments Submitted Fall 2025 (with links) UPDATE: pdfs of all Tribal comments are included in Vol. III of the EIS.
ILPC Memo: The Tribal Administrative Record on the Roadless Rule
ILPC Graphic: Chart of Tribal Comments Grouped by Theme
ILPC Memo: Strategic Considerations for Tribal Nations in the 2001 Roadless Rule Rescission Comment Period
ILPC Email to FS OTR for Consultation Records
ILPC FOIA Request to FS OTR for Consultation Records
NCAI Resolution Opposing the Legislative Repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and Supporting its Retention
Roadless Rule Tribal Hub : “The Tribal Hub is an informational platform created to support Tribal leaders, staff, and community members in responding to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Our goal is to ensure that Tribes have timely access to resources, information, and tools to protect sovereignty, treaty and reserved rights, and cultural lifeways throughout this federal rulemaking process.”

In March, Matthew posted the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision rejecting an equal protection challenge to ICWA for lack of standing. The foster parents have now asked SCOTUS to review that decision. On August 26, the Minnesota AG, Red Lake Nation, the children’s guardian ad litem, the mother, and Faribault-Martin County Human Services filed their brief in opposition.
The petitioners ask the Court to decide the equal protection question that the Court didn’t reach in Brackeen, arguing that ICWA and the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act impose race-based placement preferences. They also ask the Court to review a First Amendment claim that denying intervention because the foster parents raised a constitutional challenge was itself unconstitutional.
The brief in opposition identifies substantial obstacles to review that make the case a poor vehicle for resolving the equal protection issue left unresolved in Brackeen while also separately arguing that the equal protection claim should fail on the merits since ICWA/MIPFA use political rather than racial classifications under Morton v. Mancari. It also defends the intervention denial as constitutional.
Tribes aren’t alone in warning that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is exceeding its authority with its proposed rule. Criticism of the rule is also raised in comments submitted by former Senator Chris Dodd, co-author of Dodd-Frank, the legislation that amended the Commodities Exchange Act provisions at the heart of CFTC’s proposed rule; Timothy Massad, a former CFTC chair; 44 state attorneys general; and leading gaming and derivatives interests.
This is the third and final post in a series (first post; second post) on the CFTC’s proposed rule governing prediction market “event contracts.”
Former Sen. Chris Dodd, co-author of Dodd-Frank, says Congress did not authorize this

Former Senator Christopher Dodd submitted a comment stating:
The proposed regulatory amendments contradict the language and intent of the Dodd-Frank Act and promote public policies opposing what Congress clearly intended.
These amendments could well endanger consumers and promote speculation. These proposed amendments undermine the traditional police powers of states and also functionally amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which could diminish tribal sovereignty.
A former CFTC chair says the agency has “lost its way”
Former CFTC Chair Timothy Massad opened his comment with an unusually direct statement:
“The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has lost its way . . . . Although I have not submitted comments on any rule proposal since leaving the agency, I feel it is important to do so here because the agency has lost sight of its mission and the limits of its own authority.”
Forty-four state attorneys general raise objections
A bipartisan coalition of 44 state attorneys general, led by Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson, likewise argues:
“The CFTC in the Proposed Rule goes well beyond its statutory authority. . . . it violates both the major-questions doctrine and the federalism canon . . . . [and] clashes with the CEA’s plain text, structure, and purpose.”
Comments from the American Gaming Association and CME Group
The American Gaming Association, whose members include commercial and Tribal gaming operators, states in its comments:
The proposed rule concedes that sports event contracts involve gaming, yet creates a permissive framework designed to allow them. That approach conflicts with congressional intent, 15 years of regulatory precedent, state and federal law, and the CFTC’s own regulations. It would also displace state and tribal authority while exposing consumers and sports competitions to wagering activity without comparable licensing, geolocation, responsible gaming, integrity monitoring, or enforcement safeguards.
The CFTC is a financial markets regulator, not a national gaming commission. It lacks both the expertise and resources to replace the more than 8,400 state and tribal regulators who oversee legal gaming today. The Commission should withdraw the proposed revisions to Rule 40.11, enforce the existing prohibition on gaming event contracts, respect tribal sovereignty and states’ rights, and put an end to the unlawful nationwide expansion of sports wagering through prediction markets.
CME Group, one of the world’s largest derivatives market operators, also submitted comments, stating that “the Commission’s authority on this score is ambiguous at best, [and] deferring to Congress would be advisable.”
Each of these comments challenge the CFTC’s authority to create a nationwide market for products that function as sports betting while bypassing the federal, Tribal, and state laws that otherwise govern gaming.
The Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association’s Wins Award for Longest Comment
A final note: OIGA’s comment was the most detailed submission to the CFTC, totaling 50 pages and including 291 footnotes.
Here are the new materials in Guidiville Rancheria of California v. Bluerock Real Estate Holdings LLC (N.D. Cal.):
Prior post here.


Here.
Here is the opinion in Bayles v. Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (E.D. Okla.):
Prior post addressing claims against the tribe is here.

You must be logged in to post a comment.