Grizzly Bear Act Forces Delisting, Blocks All Lawsuits on Yellowstone Bear Management

The aptly named Grizzly Bear State Management Act is a straight shot at changing who calls the shots on grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. This isn't about setting up a new study or changing a few lines of code; it’s about forcing the immediate reinstatement of a controversial 2017 rule that removes federal protections for these bears.

The Fast Track to Delisting

Section 2 of this Act mandates that the Secretary of the Interior must, within 180 days, reissue the exact 2017 final rule that delisted the Yellowstone grizzly population. Think of it like a time machine for regulations: the Secretary has to pull the old rule off the shelf and put it back into effect, completely ignoring “any other laws that would normally apply to issuing a final rule.” In plain English, this means bypassing the standard regulatory process—public comment periods, updated scientific reviews, and the usual bureaucratic checks and balances designed to make sure a rule is sound.

Who Manages the Bears Now?

If this bill becomes law, the biggest real-world impact is the immediate transfer of management authority from the federal government to the states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. For those living and working in or near the Greater Yellowstone area—ranchers, outdoor guides, and local businesses—this means state wildlife agencies will take over decisions about population control, habitat management, and whether or not hunting is permitted. While proponents argue this gives local experts more control, it also means the bears lose the safety net of the Endangered Species Act, which has been the primary tool for their recovery.

The Unprecedented Ban on Judicial Review

The most aggressive part of this bill is the fine print regarding accountability. Section 2 explicitly states that once the Secretary reissues the 2017 rule, the action is not subject to judicial review. This is the bill’s knockout punch: it completely blocks the public, environmental groups, or anyone else from challenging the decision in court. Usually, if a government agency makes a major regulatory change—especially one affecting a threatened species—people can sue to ensure the decision followed the law and was based on the best available science. This bill removes that essential check and balance, effectively saying, "This decision is final, and no judge can look at it."

Real-World Stakes: Oversight and Trust

For the average person who cares about how government works, this provision is a major red flag. Regardless of how you feel about the grizzly bears themselves, removing the ability to challenge a major federal decision sets a concerning precedent for transparency and oversight. It means that if the 2017 rule was scientifically flawed, or if the process was rushed—concerns that led to the original rule being overturned in court—this bill forces its reinstatement without the public having any legal recourse to demand accountability or correction. The stakes here aren’t just about wildlife; they’re about how much trust you can place in a regulatory action that explicitly avoids judicial scrutiny.