H.R.106 - Less Imprecision in Species Treatment Act of 2025; LIST Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 106, the "Less Imprecision in Species Treatment Act of 2025" or "LIST Act of 2025", aims to amend the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The bill focuses on improving the precision and processes related to listing, delisting, and downlisting species under the ESA. It introduces requirements for initiating delisting procedures based on recovery goals and addresses situations where species may have been erroneously or wrongfully listed.
Specifically, the bill mandates the Secretary of the Interior to initiate delisting procedures when recovery goals are met or when substantial scientific information demonstrates recovery. It also requires a review process to identify and remove species that were listed based on inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresentative information.
Furthermore, the bill expands considerations during the 5-year review process for listed species, including evaluating the criteria in the recovery plan or the factors for determining endangered or threatened status.
Expected Effects
If enacted, H.R. 106 would likely lead to a more streamlined and potentially accelerated process for delisting species under the ESA. This could result in fewer species being listed or remaining on the list, impacting conservation efforts and resource allocation.
The bill could also increase scrutiny of the scientific basis for listing decisions, potentially leading to the removal of species listed on what is deemed to be flawed data. This could reduce regulatory burdens on landowners and businesses but may also raise concerns about the long-term protection of vulnerable species.
Finally, the changes to the 5-year review process could result in more frequent or different outcomes in species status assessments, affecting conservation strategies and funding priorities.
Potential Benefits
- Reduced Regulatory Burden: Streamlining the delisting process could reduce regulatory burdens on landowners and businesses operating in areas inhabited by listed species.
- Improved Scientific Integrity: The bill's emphasis on accurate and reliable scientific data could lead to more informed and defensible listing decisions.
- Efficient Resource Allocation: By removing species that have recovered or were erroneously listed, resources could be redirected to species in greater need of protection.
- Increased Transparency: The requirement to publish notices of delisting in the Federal Register could enhance transparency in the listing and delisting process.
- Focus on Recovery Goals: The bill emphasizes the importance of recovery plans and goals, potentially leading to more effective conservation strategies.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for Premature Delisting: The expedited delisting process could lead to the removal of species before they are truly recovered, increasing the risk of relapse.
- Weakened Protections: The bill's focus on delisting could weaken overall protections for endangered and threatened species, potentially hindering conservation efforts.
- Reduced Judicial Review: The limitation on judicial review for positive findings of erroneous listing could limit accountability and oversight.
- Increased Political Influence: The emphasis on delisting and the potential for subjective interpretation of scientific data could increase the influence of political considerations in listing decisions.
- Unintended Consequences: The changes to the 5-year review process could have unintended consequences for species conservation and management.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's alignment with the US Constitution is complex. Congress has the power to enact laws necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers, including regulating commerce, which can be interpreted to include protecting endangered species that may have economic value or impact interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8). However, the bill's potential impact on property rights and states' rights could raise concerns under the Fifth and Tenth Amendments.
The emphasis on scientific data and due process in listing and delisting decisions could be seen as consistent with principles of fairness and equal protection. However, the limitation on judicial review for certain findings could raise concerns about access to justice and accountability.
Overall, the bill's constitutionality would likely depend on how it is implemented and interpreted by the courts, balancing the federal government's power to regulate endangered species with the protection of individual rights and state sovereignty.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).