Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to reissue, within 60 days, the November 3, 2020 final rule removing the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the Endangered Species Act list. The bill also bars judicial review of that reissuance.
Progressives stress species protection and opposes removing judicial review
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly drafted substantive change that precisely directs an agency to reissue a identified final rule within a short deadline and eliminates judicial review of that action.
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to reissue, within 60 days, the November 3, 2020 final rule removing the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the Endangered Species Act list.
The bill also bars judicial review of that reissuance.
Narrow but polarizing; low fiscal cost helps, but controversy over species protection and barred judicial review makes final enactment unlikely without strong cross-chamber consensus.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly drafted substantive change that precisely directs an agency to reissue a identified final rule within a short deadline and eliminates judicial review of that action. The mechanism is specific and the responsible party and timeline are named, but the text omits fiscal, procedural, and oversight details common for actions with wider statutory and administrative effects.
Progressives stress species protection and opposes removing judicial review
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress species protection and opposes removing judicial review
Views the bill as a rollback of federal endangered-species protections that could harm gray wolf conservation.
Opposes the bar on judicial review as an undemocratic removal of legal oversight.
Sees some rationale for delisting if science supports it, but is worried the bill forces a specific past rule regardless of current data.
Concerned about the short 60-day deadline and prohibition on judicial review.
Likely supportive because it returns wolf management authority to states, reduces federal regulation, and prevents litigation delays by banning judicial review.
Sees the bill as enforcing a prior administrative decision.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but polarizing; low fiscal cost helps, but controversy over species protection and barred judicial review makes final enactment unlikely without strong cross-chamber consensus.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress species protection and opposes removing judicial review
Narrow but polarizing; low fiscal cost helps, but controversy over species protection and barred judicial review makes final enactment unli…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly drafted substantive change that precisely directs an agency to reissue a identified final rule within a short deadline and eliminates judicial review of…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.