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
H. R. 764, called the "Trust the Science Act," is a plan to stop protecting gray wolves as endangered animals, and it says people can't use the court to complain about this decision.
Summary AI
H. R. 764, also known as the "Trust the Science Act," is a proposed law that aims to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife in the United States. The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a rule, originally published on November 3, 2020, to officially delist the gray wolf within 60 days of the bill's enactment. The bill further states that this action is not subject to judicial review, meaning that courts cannot challenge or overturn the decision.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill, titled the "Trust the Science Act" (H.R. 764), is currently being considered in the U.S. Senate. It mandates the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a 2020 regulation that removes the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. The reissuance must occur within 60 days of the bill's enactment. Additionally, the bill precludes any judicial review of the reissued regulation, meaning that the decision cannot be challenged in court.
Summary of Significant Issues
A key concern with this bill is the elimination of judicial review, which essentially means that the reissued rule cannot be contested in a legal setting. This provision raises significant worries about the lack of oversight and accountability of the decision-making process. Without judicial oversight, there are limited mechanisms to ensure that the rule complies with legal standards and is implemented fairly.
Furthermore, the bill does not specify the financial or administrative impacts of reissuing this rule. Such actions could entail costs that are not accounted for, raising concerns about transparent resource allocation.
The deadline of 60 days for the reissuance is another problematic aspect. It assumes that there will be no procedural or legal obstacles in this process, which may not be the case. Legal complexities might arise, potentially complicating and delaying the process.
Another major issue is the lack of explanation or scientific rationale for the removal of the gray wolf from the list. This omission may lead to skepticism about the decision's ecological impact and whether it is supported by robust scientific evidence.
Impact on the Public
Broadly speaking, the bill could have various implications for the public. The removal of the gray wolf from the endangered species list might affect ecological balances and, consequently, the environments locals rely on for resources and recreation. Public confidence could be shaken due to the absence of judicial oversight, raising concerns about government transparency and accountability.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The stakeholders likely to be most affected include environmental advocacy groups, wildlife conservationists, and communities living in areas inhabited by gray wolves. The removal from the endangered species list may be seen negatively by conservationists, who might argue it undermines efforts to protect biodiversity and could threaten the ecosystems where gray wolves play a significant role.
On the other hand, agricultural stakeholders, particularly livestock farmers, might view the bill positively, as it could pave the way for less restrictive measures in managing wolf populations that pose a threat to livestock.
In conclusion, while the bill is likely to be welcomed by some stakeholders, it does not address key concerns about accountability, ecological impact, and financial transparency, which are crucial for broader public acceptance of such legislative measures.
Issues
The provision in Section 3 that the reissuance of the final rule under Section 2 shall not be subject to judicial review raises significant concerns about the lack of accountability and oversight, as it removes the ability for judicial challenge or evaluation, which could impact transparency and checks and balances within the legal system.
Section 2 assumes that reissuing the rule to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife is straightforward and achievable within the 60-day timeframe, without accounting for possible procedural or legal obstacles that might delay or complicate the process.
The bill does not provide any information on whether there will be financial impacts or costs associated with reissuing the final rule, which could involve administrative expenses or resource allocation, and this lacks transparency and accountability to stakeholders regarding potential resource use.
There is no explanation or rationale provided in Section 2 for the decision to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife, which may lead to public concerns about the ecological impact and the sufficiency of scientific data supporting this decision, weakening the perceived legitimacy of the decision.
The complete removal of judicial review in Section 3 could have significant legal and ethical implications, as it limits the ability of affected parties to seek redress or challenge potential government overreach, which could undermine public trust in governmental processes.
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 this Act states that it can be referred to as 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 to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife within 60 days after this section is enacted. This rule was originally published on November 3, 2020.
3. No judicial review Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The third section states that the final rule being reissued, as mentioned in the second section, cannot be challenged or reviewed in court.