Back to Bills

Courts Exclude Unreliable Scientific Evidence

Full Title:
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.

Summary#

This bill would add a new rule to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). It says courts must exclude from APA review any evidence the court decides is not the product of reliable scientific principles and methods, or is not a reliable application of those methods. The broad goal is to make courts leave out scientific evidence they judge to be unreliable when reviewing agency actions.

  • Main change: Courts may not consider scientific evidence in APA cases if the court finds that evidence is not based on reliable scientific principles or a reliable application of those principles.
  • Affects: how courts evaluate the scientific basis for agency rules, permits, or decisions.
  • Procedure change: changes what evidence can be part of the record courts review in challenges to federal agency actions.
  • Scope: applies to judicial review under title 5 (the APA); it does not itself define what counts as “reliable scientific principles and methods.”
  • Timing: the bill text does not set any special timing rules; it would apply to APA reviews after the law starts.

What it means for you#

  • Federal agencies (EPA, FDA, etc.): Agencies that use scientific studies, models, or expert analyses to make rules or permits could face more litigation focused on the scientific methods they used. Courts could exclude studies the court regards as methodologically unreliable.
  • Businesses and regulated parties: Companies challenging agency rules may be able to ask courts to exclude agency scientific evidence as unreliable. Regulated parties defending agency actions could face higher legal costs to justify methods.
  • Scientists and expert witnesses: Studies and expert analyses used in rulemaking could be subject to exclusion in court unless they meet whatever reliability test the court applies. This may push agencies and outside scientists to document methods more fully.
  • Courts and judges: Judges would be asked to evaluate and rule on scientific methodology in APA cases. That could require judges to assess technical scientific methods more often.
  • Litigants (public interest groups, states): Parties bringing or defending challenges to agency actions may see more disputes over the admissibility or inclusion of scientific evidence in the administrative record.
  • General public (environment, health, safety): Decisions that rely on scientific evidence could be more likely to be set aside, remanded, or delayed if the scientific basis is excluded by a court ruling.

What is unclear: The bill does not define how courts must decide what is a “reliable” scientific principle or method, nor does it explain procedures for making that determination or whether courts should use outside experts.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill could increase legal costs for agencies and private parties because of more disputes over scientific evidence.
  • Courts may need more time, expert input, or staff expertise to evaluate scientific methods, which could raise judicial administrative costs.
  • Agencies might spend more on study design, documentation, and peer review to withstand court scrutiny.
  • The bill text does not include a fiscal note or any estimate of these costs.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to stop courts from considering scientific evidence the court sees as unsound.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that it would prevent agency decisions from resting on unreliable or junk science.
  • Supporters may see it as promoting better decision-making by encouraging agencies to use clearer, more rigorous scientific methods.
  • It could be seen as protecting regulated parties and the public from rules based on flawed studies.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill asks courts to act as frequent gatekeepers of scientific method, which could substitute judges’ judgments for agency scientific expertise.
  • The bill does not define “reliable scientific principles and methods,” creating uncertainty about what will be excluded.
  • This could increase litigation and delay agency actions by adding new battles over methodology rather than the policy question.
  • It may give parties an easier way to overturn rules by attacking scientific methods, even when agencies followed standard scientific practice.
  • It is unclear how courts should handle complex or emerging science, or whether courts would use outside experts, leading to inconsistent results across cases.