Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
The bill amends the Endangered Species Act to require the Secretary to initiate delisting when recovery-plan goals are met or the species is deemed recovered. It mandates quicker agency action when new scientific or commercial information shows a listing was based on inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresentative data, requires the agency to remove such species, limits judicial review of positive ‘‘erroneous listing’’ findings, and clarifies factors to be considered during five-year status reviews.
Removal of judicial review for positive error findings
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive amendment to the Endangered Species Act with precise statutory drafting in places (specific subsection insertions, deadlines, and process changes).
The bill amends the Endangered Species Act to require the Secretary to initiate delisting when recovery-plan goals are met or the species is deemed recovered.
It mandates quicker agency action when new scientific or commercial information shows a listing was based on inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresentative data, requires the agency to remove such species, limits judicial review of positive ‘‘erroneous listing’’ findings, and clarifies factors to be considered during five-year status reviews.
Focused deregulatory reforms easier in one chamber but face higher Senate hurdles and legal/advocacy opposition; outcome uncertain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive amendment to the Endangered Species Act with precise statutory drafting in places (specific subsection insertions, deadlines, and process changes). It reliably integrates its changes into existing statutory structure but omits explicit problem findings, funding or resourcing provisions, detailed standards for key evidentiary terms, and robust accountability safeguards.
Removal of judicial review for positive error findings
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Removal of judicial review for positive error findings
Generally skeptical.
Supports delisting when recovery is demonstrably achieved, but concerned the bill weakens safeguards, narrows scientific review standards, and limits judicial oversight.
Worried these changes could be used to prematurely or improperly remove protections.
Cautiously mixed.
Values clearer, objective procedures for delisting when recovery is achieved but concerned about practicability and legal safeguards.
Wants balanced standards, realistic timelines, and preserved accountability mechanisms.
Supportive.
Views the bill as correcting overbroad or erroneous listings, enforcing science-based decisions, and reducing litigation and regulatory burden.
Favors expedited removal of protections when justified.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Focused deregulatory reforms easier in one chamber but face higher Senate hurdles and legal/advocacy opposition; outcome uncertain.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Removal of judicial review for positive error findings
Focused deregulatory reforms easier in one chamber but face higher Senate hurdles and legal/advocacy opposition; outcome uncertain.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive amendment to the Endangered Species Act with precise statutory drafting in places (specific subsection insertions, deadlines, and process changes). I…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.