Bills of Congress by U.S. Congress

H.R.281 - Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2025 (119th Congress)

Summary

H.R.281, the Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2025, directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of grizzly bears from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. The bill mandates reissuance within 180 days of enactment, specifically referencing the 2017 final rule (82 Fed. Reg. 30502). A key provision of the bill is that the reissuance of this rule would not be subject to judicial review.

Expected Effects

The primary effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to transfer management authority of the GYE grizzly bear population from the federal government to the states. This would allow states to manage the grizzly bear population according to their own plans, potentially including hunting and other management strategies. The elimination of judicial review would prevent legal challenges that could delay or overturn the delisting.

Potential Benefits

  • State Control: Allows states to manage grizzly bear populations according to local needs and expertise.
  • Reduced Federal Oversight: Decreases federal involvement in wildlife management, aligning with principles of states' rights.
  • Potential Economic Benefits: Could lead to increased tourism and hunting revenue for states.
  • Streamlined Process: Avoids potential delays from judicial challenges.
  • Addresses Overpopulation: States may implement strategies to manage growing grizzly bear populations.

Potential Disadvantages

  • Environmental Concerns: Removal of federal protections could lead to over-hunting or habitat destruction, threatening the long-term survival of the GYE grizzly bear population.
  • Loss of Biodiversity: Potential decline in grizzly bear populations could negatively impact the ecosystem.
  • Reduced Public Input: Eliminating judicial review limits opportunities for public and scientific input on grizzly bear management.
  • Inconsistent Management: State-by-state management could lead to inconsistencies and a lack of coordinated conservation efforts.
  • Conflict with Endangered Species Act: Could set a precedent for delisting other endangered species without thorough scientific review.

Constitutional Alignment

The bill's constitutionality is complex. Congress has the power to regulate wildlife management under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8), particularly when it involves interstate commerce or impacts. However, the lack of judicial review raises concerns about due process and the separation of powers. While Congress can legislate on wildlife, limiting judicial review could be seen as infringing on the judiciary's role in interpreting laws and ensuring executive branch actions are lawful.

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).