This short bill instructs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue the final rule that removed the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and bars courts from reviewing that action. The measure names the 2017 final rule as the text to be republished and excludes ordinary legal processes that would normally apply to such a rule.
The changes would end ESA protections for that specific grizzly population and effectively push primary management responsibility toward state and local authorities while removing common legal avenues for challengers. For compliance officers, wildlife managers, and lawyers, the bill replaces administrative and judicial scrutiny with a statutorily mandated outcome — but it contains no funding or detailed post-delisting management plan.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue, as the operative rule, the 2017 Federal Register final rule that removed the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly population from the ESA list. It requires reissuance within a statutory period and instructs the agency to do so “without regard to any other provision of law” that would apply to issuing that rule.
Who It Affects
Primary actors include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (as the implementing agency), state fish and wildlife agencies that manage bears in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, federal land managers operating in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, conservation organizations that litigate ESA matters, and ranchers, recreation businesses and local governments in and near the GYE.
Why It Matters
Delisting removes core ESA protections (including Section 9 take prohibitions and the requirement to designate critical habitat for that population), reassigns frontline management to state authorities, and eliminates routine judicial review — an unusual combination that narrows oversight while producing immediate regulatory and operational changes on the ground.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill orders the Interior Department to republish the 2017 delisting rule for the Greater Yellowstone grizzly as the controlling federal regulation. Practically, that means the United States Fish and Wildlife Service would repurpose the prior final rule text so that the GYE population is treated as no longer listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Removing ESA status eliminates the federal protections and prohibitions that have governed how agencies and private parties must act to avoid harming that population.
Once the population is no longer listed, day-to-day management normally shifts to state wildlife agencies. Those agencies set hunting seasons, conflict-response protocols, and population objectives through state regulatory processes; delisting clears the statutory barrier that formerly constrained state actions under the ESA.
At the same time, federal land managers will still operate under other conservation statutes and land-use authorities, so management on federal lands will be shaped by a mix of state choices and other federal requirements.The bill also alters the administrative posture surrounding delisting by removing ordinary procedural constraints and legal review. That changes how accountability and dispute resolution happen: instead of agency rulemaking subject to public comment, judicial oversight, and procedural statutes, the reissuance would be implemented under a direct congressional instruction.
The statute does not set aside funds, prescribe a post-delisting monitoring program, or mandate state management standards, leaving practical implementation details to agencies and states after delisting.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to reissue the specific 2017 final rule titled “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife” (82 Fed. Reg. 30502 (June 30, 2017)).
It directs the agency to complete that reissuance within 180 days of the bill’s enactment.
The statute commands reissuance “without regard to any other provision of law that applies to the issuance of that final rule,” a broad instruction that would bypass typical procedural statutes that govern agency rulemaking.
The bill explicitly precludes judicial review of the reissuance, stating the reissuance (including that statutory section) shall not be subject to review in court.
The bill contains no appropriation, no detailed post-delisting monitoring or state-management standards, and no transitional funding for federal or state agencies to implement a changed regulatory regime.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act the name “Grizzly Bear State Management Act.” This is purely nominative but signals the bill’s policy thrust toward state-led management after delisting.
Directive to reissue the 2017 delisting rule
Mandates that the Secretary of the Interior reissue the 2017 final rule removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly population from the ESA list. The provision identifies the exact Federal Register final rule as the text to be republished; it also imposes a 180-day deadline for reissuance. For the Fish and Wildlife Service that means implementing an administrative act specified by statute rather than initiating a multi-step rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Practically, reissuance under this mandate would restore the regulatory status that existed under the 2017 rule text and trigger the practical consequences of delisting: removal of Section 9 take prohibitions for the delisted population and the end of ESA-based consultation requirements tied solely to that listing.
Statutory bar on judicial review
Prohibits courts from reviewing the reissuance, including the statutory provision itself. That removes the standard judicial safety valve where affected parties—states, NGOs, tribes, or others—would challenge whether the agency complied with procedural or substantive legal requirements. By insulating the reissuance from review, Congress forecloses litigation over the decision’s process and substance as applied to this republished rule.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State wildlife agencies in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho — gain primary regulatory authority to set harvest, conflict control, and population objectives for the GYE grizzly population without ESA-imposed constraints, increasing their management discretion.
- Ranchers and private landowners near or within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem — face fewer federal restrictions on lethal control of individual bears deemed threats, and may receive quicker state-authorized relief from depredation or conflict situations.
- Hunters and regional outdoor-recreation businesses — may gain future economic opportunities if states authorize regulated take or expand hunting-based wildlife programs once federal protections no longer apply.
Who Bears the Cost
- Conservation and environmental organizations — lose a key procedural avenue (judicial review) to challenge the delisting decision, reducing their leverage to press for stronger safeguards or procedural compliance.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — while the agency is ordered to act, the statutory insulation from legal review shifts political and implementation risk onto the agency without providing funds or operational guidance for post-delisting monitoring.
- Tribal governments and tribal members with cultural or treaty interests in wildlife — could face outcome risks if delisting proceeds without negotiated management arrangements; the bill contains no direction for tribal consultation or protection of tribal interests.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits rapid transfer of control to state managers and expedited delisting against longstanding federal conservation protections and judicial oversight: it aims to achieve a policy outcome quickly and without normal procedural or legal checks, but in doing so it removes the mechanisms that previously ensured scientific review, public input, and judicial accountability — a trade-off between speed and procedural safeguards.
The bill’s core drafting choices create multiple implementation and legal uncertainties. The “without regard to any other provision of law” phrase is broad but uninsured: it is unclear exactly which statutes and procedural requirements Congress intends to displace.
That language can be read to waive requirements under the APA, NEPA, or other statutes that would normally apply to reissuing a final rule, but the provision does not list specific statutes or describe how conflicting statutory obligations should be reconciled. That ambiguity will complicate agency planning and raises questions about the reach of the waiver beyond narrow procedural steps.
Removing judicial review narrows traditional accountability channels and raises separation-of-powers and administrative-law concerns. Precluding courts from reviewing a congressionally mandated administrative act limits affected parties’ ability to test whether Congress exceeded its authority, whether statutory waivers were properly applied, or whether downstream actions (for example, state hunting seasons or lethal removals on land managed by other federal agencies) comport with other federal obligations.
The statute also leaves a practical governance gap: there is no appropriation or mandated post-delisting monitoring framework, nor does it require state management plans, minimum population objectives, or contingency thresholds. Without those details, delisting can produce immediate regulatory change while leaving critical operational questions—funding, interjurisdictional coordination, and scientific monitoring—unresolved.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.