To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act does not include any evidence that the court determines is not the product of reliable scientific principles and methods.
- Bill Number
- H.R. 9277
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-06-11: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-23T02:21:32Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose The legislation amends federal law to expand the grounds for judicial review of agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act, specifically allowing courts to examine whether decisions rely on unreliable scientific evidence.
Key Provisions
- Amends Section 706(2) of title 5, United States Code.
- Adds a new subparagraph (G) stating that a court may set aside agency action if it is "supported by evidence that the court determines is not the product of reliable scientific principles and methods, or that does not reflect a reliable application of those principles and methods."
- Makes conforming changes to the existing list of reviewable grounds by inserting "; or" before the new provision.
Significant Changes to Existing Law This bill introduces an explicit new basis for invalidating agency actions during judicial review, focused on the reliability of scientific support. It builds on current standards in the Administrative Procedure Act without altering other review criteria such as arbitrary and capricious review.
Potential Impacts
- Government agencies: Agencies that issue rules or decisions based on scientific data (such as environmental, health, or safety regulations) may face stricter scrutiny and could need to strengthen the scientific foundations of their actions.
- Citizens: Individuals or groups affected by regulations could have additional avenues to challenge agency decisions in court if they believe the supporting science is unreliable.
- International relations: No direct effects are specified, though changes in U.S. regulatory standards could indirectly influence trade, environmental agreements, or cross-border policies.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal administrative agencies responsible for rulemaking.
- Federal courts conducting judicial review.
- Regulated industries, businesses, and advocacy organizations that participate in or are subject to agency decisions.
- The public, including individuals and communities impacted by agency actions.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Applies a reliability standard similar to evidence rules used in trials, extending it to administrative proceedings and potentially increasing the role of courts in evaluating scientific methods.
- Constitutional: Raises questions about the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches by giving courts explicit authority to assess the scientific basis of agency actions.
- Political: Could affect the pace and scope of regulations in science-dependent areas, though the bill itself contains no statements on policy goals beyond the procedural change.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large]
Recent Actions
- 2026-06-11: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2026-06-11: Introduced in House
- 2026-06-11: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act does not include any evidence that the court determines is not the product of reliable scientific principles and methods. — issued 2026-06-11 — PDF (2 pages)