SB 316, the Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2025, would require the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a 2017 final rule removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. In practical terms, the bill would force the federal government to restore a prior delisting decision for that grizzly population within 180 days of enactment, regardless of other legal requirements that would normally apply to issuing the rule.
The bill also states that the reissued rule, and the section of the bill directing it, would not be subject to judicial review. That means courts would be barred from reviewing challenges to the mandated reissuance, which is a significant departure from the usual administrative and environmental litigation process. The measure is framed as a state-management bill and is aimed specifically at shifting authority over the Greater Yellowstone grizzly population away from federal endangered species protections.
Impact
If enacted, SB 316 would alter the operation of the Endangered Species Act as applied to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population by compelling the Interior Department to restore the 2017 delisting rule. It would effectively override any contrary federal procedural or substantive requirements that might otherwise block reissuance of that rule, and it would remove the possibility of court review over the mandated action. The bill would directly affect federal wildlife management, state wildlife agencies in the Greater Yellowstone region, conservation groups, and stakeholders concerned with grizzly bear recovery, hunting, livestock conflicts, and land use.
Sentiment
Based on the bill’s sponsorship and framing, the measure appears to have strong support among senators from western states who favor state management of grizzly bears and delisting from federal protections. The absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials means there is no documented opposition or amendment activity here, but the subject matter itself is typically polarizing. Supporters are likely to view the bill as a restoration of state authority and a recognition of recovered bear populations, while opponents are likely to see it as weakening endangered species safeguards and limiting judicial oversight.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether the Greater Yellowstone grizzly population should remain under federal protection or be returned to state management through delisting. Supporters, including the bill’s sponsors, are likely to argue that the population has recovered sufficiently and that states should manage the species. Opponents, typically conservation and wildlife-protection interests, would likely object to bypassing normal administrative standards and especially to the bill’s no-judicial-review provision, which removes the ability of courts to assess the legality of the mandated rulemaking. The bill’s attempt to direct a specific regulatory outcome by statute, rather than through ordinary agency process, is also likely to be controversial.
An act to amend Sections 3011, 3950, 4181, 4181.1, and 4185 of, to add Section 4764 to, and to add Chapter 9.5 (commencing with Section 4775) to Part 3 of Division 4 of, of the Fish and Game Code, relating to wildlife.