Overview
This bill is a direct congressional intervention to nullify a specific administrative rulemaking action taken by two federal agencies. The legislation targets a final rule jointly issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that rescinded the longstanding regulatory definition of 'harm' under the Endangered Species Act. By declaring that rule to have no force or effect, the bill seeks to restore the prior regulatory framework that had broadly defined 'harm' to include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures wildlife. The bill represents a legislative check on executive agency rulemaking, using Congress's authority to override administrative action it deems contrary to the intent and purposes of the Endangered Species Act.
Legal References
- Endangered Species Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-205
- 91 Fed. Reg. 43300 (July 14, 2026)
Core Provisions
The bill contains a single operative provision: the final rule published at 91 Fed. Reg. 43300 on July 14, 2026, titled 'Rescinding the Definition of Harm Under the Endangered Species Act,' is declared to have no force or effect. This language is the standard congressional formula for voiding an administrative rule without formally amending the underlying statute. The effect is immediate upon enactment — the rescission rule is treated as if it never took effect, and the prior regulatory definition of 'harm' is restored to operative status. No new programs, funding authorizations, or additional statutory amendments are created by the bill. The sole legislative action is the nullification of the identified rulemaking.
Key Points
- Declares the USFWS/NOAA final rule at 91 Fed. Reg. 43300 to have no force or effect.
- Restores the pre-existing regulatory definition of 'harm' under the Endangered Species Act.
- Contains no funding provisions, new program authorizations, or additional statutory amendments.
- Takes effect upon enactment with no phased implementation timeline.
Legal References
- Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.
- 91 Fed. Reg. 43300 (July 14, 2026)
- 50 C.F.R. § 17.3 (prior definition of 'harm')
Implementation
Implementation of this bill requires no new administrative infrastructure. Upon enactment, the USFWS and NOAA are immediately bound to enforce the Endangered Species Act under the restored definition of 'harm,' which encompasses significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed species. Both agencies would be required to revert their enforcement guidance, permitting decisions, and regulatory interpretations to the pre-rescission framework. No new reporting requirements, compliance deadlines, or funding mechanisms are established. The Committee on Natural Resources holds jurisdiction over the bill in the House, and its passage would require action in both chambers before being presented to the President.
Legal References
- 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19) (definition of 'take' under ESA)
- 50 C.F.R. § 17.3
- Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995)
Impact
The primary beneficiaries of this bill are listed threatened and endangered species and the environmental and conservation communities that rely on robust ESA enforcement to protect critical habitat. By restoring the broad definition of 'harm,' the bill reinstates legal protections against habitat destruction that had been eliminated by the rescission rule. Landowners, developers, timber companies, and other industries that had gained regulatory relief under the rescission rule would face the reimposition of constraints on activities that significantly modify or degrade habitat of listed species. The administrative burden on USFWS and NOAA is minimal, as the agencies would simply revert to previously established enforcement frameworks. No direct appropriations are involved, though the restored definition may increase the volume of Section 7 consultations and Section 10 incidental take permit applications processed by the agencies.
Legal References
- 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (Section 7 interagency consultation)
- 16 U.S.C. § 1539 (Section 10 incidental take permits)
- Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995)
Legal Framework
The constitutional basis for this legislation rests on Congress's broad authority under the Commerce Clause and its plenary power to define the scope of statutes it has enacted. The Endangered Species Act is a creature of Congress, and Congress retains the authority to override agency interpretations of that statute through subsequent legislation. The bill operates as a direct statutory override of agency rulemaking, a well-established legislative mechanism. The Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon upheld the prior regulatory definition of 'harm' as a valid exercise of agency authority under the ESA, providing the legal foundation for the definition the bill seeks to restore. The bill does not preempt state law but does restore federal regulatory requirements that states and private parties must comply with when their activities affect federally listed species. No judicial review provisions are included, though affected parties retain existing rights to challenge agency enforcement actions under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Legal References
- U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 (Commerce Clause)
- Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.
- Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995)
- Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.
- 5 U.S.C. § 706 (judicial review of agency action)
Critical Issues
The central political controversy surrounding this bill is the ongoing dispute over the proper scope of the ESA's prohibition on 'take' of listed species and whether habitat modification should be treated as a form of harm. The rescission rule reflected the position that the prior definition exceeded the statutory text of the ESA; the bill rejects that position by legislative fiat. Opponents of the bill will argue that restoring the broad harm definition imposes significant economic burdens on private landowners and industries without adequate compensation, raising potential Takings Clause concerns under the Fifth Amendment. Proponents of the rescission rule may also argue that the prior definition represented an unlawful expansion of agency authority inconsistent with the major questions doctrine articulated in West Virginia v. EPA. Implementation challenges are limited given the bill's narrow scope, but the restored definition will likely generate increased litigation over specific enforcement actions. The bill's prospects depend entirely on the political composition of Congress and the position of the executive branch, as a presidential veto would require a two-thirds override majority in both chambers.