A Republican bill with 5 Republican cosponsors · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Free to Exit Administrative Tribunals Act or the FEAT Act. It was introduced in the Senate on June 15, 2026. The main goal of the bill is to speed up the resolution of certain administrative proceedings at the Department of the Interior. It gives certain parties the right to remove a covered action from the Department to a United States district court. The district court will then review the removed action de novo.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Provides business owners with a more favorable legal avenue to challenge DOI sanctions or seek approvals.
- Scored +3
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Allows de novo review in district court, potentially providing a more impartial legal process than administrative hearings.
- Scored +2
Would farmers be better off under this?
Farmers utilizing DOI land may benefit from the ability to move administrative disputes to federal court.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this give the federal government more power?
Shifts adjudication from executive agency tribunals to the federal judiciary.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Right of Removal: Under Section 2(b), a covered party has the right to remove a covered action to a United States district court within 60 days of the action being initiated with the Department. This is positive because it gives people a choice to take their matter out of the Department's internal hearings and into a federal court.
-
Fresh Review: Under Section 2(c), any covered action removed to a district court will be reviewed de novo. This is positive for individuals because the federal court will look at the case completely fresh rather than just deferring to the Department's earlier decisions.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
Based on the provided text, there are no specific negative impacts or burdens for individuals or groups of people explicitly mentioned in the bill.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Provides business owners with a more favorable legal avenue to challenge DOI sanctions or seek approvals. Would farmers be better off under this? — Farmers utilizing DOI land may benefit from the ability to move administrative disputes to federal court. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural stakeholders dealing with land management issues are more likely to be affected by DOI administrative proceedings.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Provides businesses dealing with the DOI an alternative venue in federal court for administrative disputes.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Affects how disputes over public land managed by the DOI are adjudicated.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Allows de novo review in district court, potentially providing a more impartial legal process than administrative hearings. Does this give the federal government more power? — Shifts adjudication from executive agency tribunals to the federal judiciary.
- 9/16/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held.
- 6/16/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/15/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
John BarrassoRepublican · Wyoming
Tom CottonRepublican · Arkansas
Ted CruzRepublican · Texas
Cynthia LummisRepublican · Wyoming
Rick ScottRepublican · Florida