S.1306 - To require the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue a final rule removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. (119th Congress)
Summary
S.1306 mandates the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue a final rule removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife, referencing the 2020 rule (85 Fed. Reg. 69778). The bill stipulates that this reissuance must occur within 60 days of the Act's enactment. Furthermore, it explicitly states that the reissuance of this rule will not be subject to judicial review.
This bill aims to expedite the delisting process and prevent legal challenges that could delay or reverse the removal of the gray wolf from the endangered species list. The sponsors of the bill are Mr. Johnson, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Lee.
The bill was introduced in the Senate on April 4, 2025, and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill, if enacted, would be the immediate delisting of the gray wolf from the endangered and threatened wildlife list. This would transfer management authority of the gray wolf from the federal government to state and tribal authorities.
Additionally, the bill's provision barring judicial review would prevent environmental groups or other concerned parties from challenging the delisting in court. This could lead to changes in wolf population management strategies and potential impacts on wolf populations and ecosystems.
Potential Benefits
- Reduced regulatory burden: Delisting the gray wolf could reduce regulatory burdens on landowners and businesses in areas where wolves are present.
- Increased state control: State wildlife agencies would have greater flexibility in managing wolf populations according to their specific needs and priorities.
- Potential for economic benefits: Increased hunting and trapping opportunities could generate revenue for state economies.
- Focus on other species: Resources currently dedicated to wolf management could be redirected to the conservation of other endangered or threatened species.
- Addresses concerns of local communities: Responds to concerns of farmers and ranchers regarding livestock depredation by wolves.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for over-hunting: Without federal protections, wolf populations could decline due to over-hunting or aggressive management practices.
- Loss of biodiversity: Reduced wolf populations could have negative impacts on ecosystem health and biodiversity.
- Compromised scientific integrity: Bypassing judicial review could set a precedent for political interference in scientific decisions related to endangered species.
- Increased conflict: Delisting could lead to increased conflict between wolves and humans, particularly livestock owners.
- Undermining the Endangered Species Act: This action could weaken the overall effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex. Congress has the power to enact laws regarding wildlife management under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8), as it can be argued that wildlife management affects interstate commerce. The bill also involves the power of Congress to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18).
However, the provision barring judicial review raises concerns about due process and the separation of powers. While Congress can define the jurisdiction of federal courts, limiting judicial review entirely could be seen as infringing on the judiciary's role in interpreting laws and ensuring executive branch actions are consistent with statutory authority. This could be viewed as a potential violation of the principle of checks and balances.
Furthermore, the bill's impact on environmental protection could be debated in the context of the government's responsibility to promote the general welfare, as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution.
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).