Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue the June 30, 2017 final rule removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife within 180 days. It requires reissuance “without regard to any other provision of law” applicable to that rule and bars judicial review of the reissuance.
Progressives emphasize weakened ESA protections and loss of judicial oversight.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a narrowly tailored, specific directive to reissue a named final rule (with a concrete deadline) and removes avenues for legal challenge, but it omits fiscal, oversight, and contingency details.
This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue the June 30, 2017 final rule removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife within 180 days.
It requires reissuance “without regard to any other provision of law” applicable to that rule and bars judicial review of the reissuance.
Targeted but legally aggressive measure; narrow focus helps, but removal of legal safeguards and high controversy lower chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a narrowly tailored, specific directive to reissue a named final rule (with a concrete deadline) and removes avenues for legal challenge, but it omits fiscal, oversight, and contingency details.
Progressives emphasize weakened ESA protections and loss of judicial oversight.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize weakened ESA protections and loss of judicial oversight.
Likely strongly opposed.
They will view the bill as an administrative override that weakens Endangered Species Act protections and removes judicial oversight.
They will worry it risks species recovery and sets a precedent for bypassing environmental law.
Cautious and mixed.
They will acknowledge benefits of resolving long litigation and enabling state management but worry about bypassing legal processes and scientific safeguards.
They would want assurances on monitoring, funding, and clear contingency triggers.
Generally supportive.
They will see this as restoring state authority, ending federal overreach, and preventing prolonged litigation.
The ban on judicial review is a welcome protection against lawsuits that block state management.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Targeted but legally aggressive measure; narrow focus helps, but removal of legal safeguards and high controversy lower chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize weakened ESA protections and loss of judicial oversight.
Targeted but legally aggressive measure; narrow focus helps, but removal of legal safeguards and high controversy lower chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a narrowly tailored, specific directive to reissue a named final rule (with a concrete deadline) and removes avenues for legal challenge, but it omits fiscal…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.