HB 4275 – Mineral Rights Protection Act (Summary)
Purpose and intent
- To prohibit ownership of mineral rights within Michigan by certain foreign entities and to provide penalties and enforcement mechanisms for violations.
- Acts as a companion/ tie-bar to HB 4274; the provisions take effect only if HB 4274 becomes law.
Key provisions and changes
- Definitions (Sec. 3)
- Disqualified person: includes a foreign entity of concern, entities created/organized in or controlled by such countries, entities controlled by disqualified persons, and citizens of countries that are foreign entities of concern.
- Foreign entity of concern: defined consistent with 42 USC 18741.
- Mineral rights: ownership rights related to extraction of minerals.
- Minerals: subsurface oil, gas, coal, or other minerals (metallic or nonmetallic).
- Prohibition on acquisition (Sec. 5)
- A disqualified entity may not acquire directly or indirectly any mineral rights within Michigan after the act’s effective date.
- Penalties and enforcement (Sec. 7)
- Violations are a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $1,000,000 fine.
- Mineral rights acquired in violation are subject to seizure and forfeiture under the Revised Judicature Act (MCL 600.4701–600.4710).
- The Attorney General may prosecute violations.
- Effective date and tie-bar (Enacting sections)
- The act takes effect 90 days after enactment.
- The act’s effectiveness is contingent on the enactment of HB 4274 (tie-bar).
Procedural and timeline details
- Introduced: March 10, 2025 by Rep. Tom Kunse.
- Status: Referred to Committee on Government Operations; public hearing held on April 9, 2025; left pending in committee.
- Legislative actions show activity in April 2025 with testimony and a committee vote status.
- Related legislation: companion SB 2151.
Who would be affected
- Disqualified persons and entities, including affiliates and controlling entities linked to foreign entities of concern.
- Any person or entity attempting to acquire mineral rights in Michigan, directly or indirectly, that would fall under a “disqualified person.”
- Government and law enforcement (Attorney General) for enforcement; seizure/forfeiture procedures mirror existing framework under Michigan law.
Potential impacts and considerations
- Policy aim: safeguard strategic mineral resources from potential foreign control, aligning with energy, security, and resource governance concerns.
- Economic and legal implications: could affect foreign investment in Michigan mineral development; introduces substantial penalties and forfeiture risks; potential for legal challenges or challenges related to the definitions of “foreign entity of concern.”
- Operational note: IN effect only if HB 4274 passes, per the tie-bar.
Related bill
- Companion: SB 2151.
