LIST Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 106
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Environmental Protection
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Last Updated
- 2025-02-18T15:12:49Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The LIST Act of 2025 aims to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to make decisions about listing, delisting (removing from protection), and downlisting (reclassifying from endangered to threatened) species more precise and efficient. It focuses on requiring delistings when species recover or were listed based on faulty information, reducing what the bill calls "imprecision" in species protections.
Key Provisions
- Mandatory Delisting for Recovery (Section 2(a)):
- The Secretary of the Interior must start the delisting process if a species meets the goals in its recovery plan (a document outlining steps to restore the species) or, if no plan exists, if the species has recovered enough to no longer need ESA protections.
- If the Department of the Interior receives or produces strong scientific or commercial evidence showing recovery or met recovery goals, the species must be delisted.
- For delistings due to recovery, public notice is simplified to just announcing the removal, without full hearings.
- Delisting for Erroneous Listings (Section 2(b)):
- Within 90 days of receiving or producing evidence that a listing was based on inaccurate (beyond reasonable scientific error), fraudulent, or misleading scientific or commercial data, the Secretary must determine if the listing was likely erroneous.
- If erroneous, the species must be delisted, with prompt notice in the Federal Register (a government publication for official announcements).
- Decisions to delist (positive findings) cannot be challenged in court, but decisions not to delist (negative findings) can.
- Anyone who knowingly submits false information leading to an erroneous listing is barred for 10 years from submitting future petitions as an "interested person" (someone qualified to request actions under the ESA).
- Notice for these delistings is limited to announcing the removal.
- Expanded Review Criteria for 5-Year Status Reviews (Section 3):
- Every 5 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must review listed species' status and consider:
- Recovery plan criteria (measurable goals for population and habitat).
- If no criteria exist, the original factors used for listing (like habitat loss or overexploitation).
- Evidence of errors in the original listing decision, including if the species is actually extinct.
- Whether the species is no longer endangered or threatened based on re-analysis of listing factors.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- New Mandatory Triggers for Delisting: The ESA previously allowed but did not require delistings based on recovery or errors; this bill makes them obligatory when evidence is clear, speeding up the process.
- Simplified Procedures: Reduces public comment periods and hearings for certain delistings, contrasting with the ESA's more deliberative approach.
- Limits on Judicial Review: Introduces a one-way review system where delistings for errors cannot be appealed in court, but refusals to delist can—altering the ESA's balanced review provisions.
- Penalties for Bad-Faith Petitions: Adds a 10-year ban on repeat offenders, which was not in the original ESA.
- Broader 5-Year Review Focus: Expands what must be evaluated in periodic reviews, emphasizing recovery goals and potential errors over just current status.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The Department of the Interior and USFWS may face increased workload for mandatory reviews and delistings but could see reduced long-term management costs if more species are delisted. It streamlines bureaucracy but risks more litigation over negative findings.
- On Citizens: Landowners, farmers, and developers might benefit from fewer ESA restrictions (e.g., habitat protections) if species are delisted, potentially easing economic burdens. Conservation advocates could see protections weakened, leading to faster species declines in some cases.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the ESA primarily affects domestic species, though it could influence U.S. credibility in global conservation treaties like CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) if delistings lead to perceptions of lax protections.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: Department of the Interior and USFWS, responsible for implementing reviews and delistings.
- Conservation Groups and Scientists: Environmental organizations (e.g., Sierra Club) and researchers who petition for listings; they may oppose easier delistings but could use expanded reviews to challenge errors.
- Landowners and Industries: Farmers, ranchers, timber companies, and energy developers who face ESA restrictions on land use; they stand to gain from delistings.
- Petitioners and the Public: Individuals or groups submitting ESA petitions; repeat bad-faith actors face penalties, while the public may experience changes in protected areas.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: The ban on judicial review for certain delistings could be challenged as violating due process (fair legal procedures under the Constitution) or the Administrative Procedure Act, which generally allows court oversight of agency actions. The bill's focus on "error" findings introduces a new evidentiary standard that might lead to disputes over what counts as "fraudulent" or "inaccurate" data.
- Constitutional: Potential issues with equal protection or access to courts if the one-sided review limits unequally affect conservation interests versus industry groups.
- Political: Aligns with deregulation efforts, possibly appealing to Republican-led initiatives for reducing federal environmental oversight, but it may spark partisan divides in Congress or lawsuits from Democrats and environmental lobbies. If passed, it could set a precedent for amending other environmental laws to prioritize efficiency over caution.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
- 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Less Imprecision in Species Treatment Act of 2025 — issued 2025-01-03 — PDF (6 pages)