Pet and Livestock Protection Act
Summary
The Pet and Livestock Protection Act, also known as H.R. 845, directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule from November 3, 2020, which removes the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Act stipulates that the reissuance of this rule will not be subject to judicial review. This bill was reported with an amendment and committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this act would be the delisting of the gray wolf from the endangered and threatened species list. This would remove federal protections for the gray wolf, potentially impacting its population and habitat management. The preclusion of judicial review limits the ability to challenge this decision in court.
Potential Benefits
- Potentially reduces regulatory burdens on landowners and businesses in areas where gray wolves are present.
- May allow for more flexible management of gray wolf populations by state and local authorities.
- Could lead to decreased livestock depredation in some areas.
- May address concerns of local communities regarding human safety and economic impacts related to gray wolf presence.
- Could streamline land development and resource extraction processes in certain regions.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Could lead to a decline in gray wolf populations due to reduced protections.
- May negatively impact biodiversity and ecosystem health.
- Could spark legal challenges based on procedural or scientific grounds, despite the no judicial review clause.
- May create conflicts between different interest groups (e.g., conservationists, ranchers).
- Could undermine the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The Act's constitutionality is complex. Congress has the power to enact laws regarding endangered species under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8), as these species can affect interstate commerce through tourism and ecosystem services. However, the provision barring judicial review raises concerns about due process and the separation of powers, potentially conflicting with Article III, Section 2, which grants federal courts jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law. The constitutionality of limiting judicial review would likely be subject to intense debate.
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).