Preserve Prior Endangered Species Act Definition

Summary#

This bill would nullify (make without legal force) a final rule issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA that is titled “Rescinding the Definition of ‘Harm’ Under the Endangered Species Act.” In plain terms, the bill would prevent that rescission from taking effect. The apparent goal is to keep the prior regulatory definition of “harm” in place for purposes of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

  • Main change: declares that the agencies’ final rule rescinding the definition of “harm” has no force or effect.
  • Who is affected: federal agencies (Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA), parties regulated under the ESA, and interests involved in endangered species protection or land and resource use.
  • Practical legal effect: would likely leave the pre-existing regulatory definition of “harm” in place instead of removing it.
  • What is unclear: the bill text and explanatory materials are not provided here, so it is not clear which exact wording of “harm” would remain, when this takes effect, or whether the bill would affect past actions taken under the rescinding rule.

What it means for you#

  • Federal agencies: The Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA could not rely on the rescission named in the final rule. They would need to continue applying the earlier definition of “harm” unless they issue a new rule that Congress allows or courts require a different approach.
  • Businesses and developers (construction, energy, forestry, agriculture): This could mean permit requirements, consultations, or limits tied to the prior definition of “harm” would continue to apply. The bill does not itself change permit processes, but it keeps the existing regulatory standard in force.
  • Landowners and private property users: Land-use activities that were regulated under the prior definition may remain subject to the same ESA-related limits or consultation requirements as before the rescission.
  • Conservation organizations and wildlife advocates: If the prior definition provided broader protections, those protections would likely remain in place rather than being narrowed by the rescission.
  • Courts and lawyers: Litigation that depends on whether the definition of “harm” exists or how it is applied could continue under the earlier rule; the bill may affect pending or future lawsuits depending on timing and court decisions.
  • General public: There is no direct change to taxes or broad public services described in the available material. The change mainly affects how ESA protections are defined and applied.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill summary and materials provided do not include a fiscal note or budget estimate.
  • Possible but unspecified costs could include agency administrative work to respond to the congressional action, potential legal costs if parties challenge the bill, and compliance costs for regulated entities. These are not quantified in the available materials.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to preserve an existing regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that keeping the prior definition maintains the level of protection for listed species and their habitat that existed before the rescission.
  • It could be seen as providing legal clarity by preventing a rule change that would remove an established definition used in enforcement and consultations under the ESA.
  • It may be framed as protecting the conservation outcomes that rely on the prior definition.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill prevents the agencies from updating or clarifying their rules through normal rulemaking, which may limit regulatory flexibility.
  • The bill does not explain which exact prior wording of “harm” is preserved, creating uncertainty about legal details.
  • Keeping the prior definition in place could maintain compliance costs or permit constraints for landowners and businesses that some view as burdensome.
  • There may be legal questions about congressional action that directly nullifies an agency rule and how courts will treat such actions; those potential litigation risks are not explained in the available material.