Overview
Title
An Act To require the Secretary of the Interior to reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
ELI5 AI
The "Trust the Science Act" is a rule that says gray wolves are no longer considered endangered animals. It also says that nobody can go to court to change this rule.
Summary AI
H.R. 764, also known as the “Trust the Science Act,” mandates the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a federal regulation that removes the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened species. This action is based on a rule previously published on November 3, 2020. The reissued rule is exempt from judicial review, meaning it cannot be challenged in court. The bill passed the House of Representatives on April 30, 2024.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The bill, titled the "Trust the Science Act," seeks to direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a specific rule regarding the status of the gray wolf. According to the proposed legislation, the gray wolf would be removed from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The reissuance of this rule is set to occur within 60 days of the bill’s enactment. Notably, the bill includes a provision that bars any judicial review of this reissued rule, meaning that it cannot be challenged in court.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the principal issues with this bill is the mandate to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened species without a clearly articulated rationale or criteria. The lack of transparency regarding the science or data supporting this decision could be seen as concerning. Furthermore, the bill's stipulation that this rule is not subject to judicial review removes a layer of accountability and legal oversight, which typically serves as a check against any potential procedural or substantive errors in federal rulemaking.
Another issue is the potential ambiguity surrounding the implementation timeline for reissuing the rule. The bill specifies a 60-day window but does not outline consequences if this deadline is missed or the rule is not reissued in time. This could lead to confusion or enforcement challenges.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the removal of the gray wolf from the protected list could have ecological and environmental implications. The gray wolf plays a significant role in ecosystems as a predator, helping to maintain balance by controlling populations of other animals. Changes in their legal status could affect local wildlife management practices and potentially lead to increased wolf populations in certain areas, affecting livestock and other human activities.
Some members of the public who value environmental conservation might see this bill as a step backward in wildlife protection, as it circumvents opportunities to challenge the decision legally. Conversely, others may view the action as aligning with the best available science if they believe the wolf populations have sufficiently recovered.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The bill could have varying impacts on different stakeholders. Conservation groups may view the removal of judicial review as a negative development, as it limits their ability to contest the rule in court, potentially undermining conservation efforts. Environmentalists might argue that this lack of judicial oversight could lead to arbitrary decision-making not grounded in scientific evidence.
On the other hand, agricultural and ranching communities might support the bill because a delisting could mean fewer regulatory burdens and possibly fewer issues related to wolf predation on livestock. They may perceive this as a positive development, assuming they view current wolf populations as being robust.
Overall, the potential impacts of this bill are complex, and its lack of transparency and bypassing of judicial checks might be points of significant contention among different interest groups and the public at large.
Issues
The removal of the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife as mandated in Section 2 may have significant environmental impacts. The section lacks specificity on the criteria and reasoning behind this decision, which raises concerns about transparency and ecological consequences.
Section 3's provision that the reissuance of the rule is not subject to judicial review may be controversial as it eliminates checks and balances typically afforded by the judicial system. This prevents legal challenges to the decision, raising concerns about accountability and oversight.
The timeline specified in Section 2, 'Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment,' could lead to ambiguity and potential implementation issues if the timeline is not met. There is no mention of consequences for non-compliance, which may affect the execution of the bill.
The title of Section 1, 'Short title,' does not provide any substantive information or context for issues, only naming the Act as 'Trust the Science Act,' which lacks clarity regarding the scientific basis or research supporting the bill's provisions.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that the Act is officially named the “Trust the Science Act”.
2. Removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a rule that was published on November 3, 2020, which removes the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife within 60 days of this section becoming law.
3. No judicial review Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the final rule mentioned in Section 2 cannot be challenged or reviewed in court.