Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Bill requires courts to exclude unreliable scientific evidence from administrative law review cases.
The problem
Courts sometimes use weak scientific evidence when reviewing government agency decisions. This bill aims to ensure only reliable science influences those court decisions.
The proposal
Amends the Administrative Procedure Act so courts must exclude any evidence they determine isn't based on sound scientific principles and methods.
The impact
Affects federal agencies, businesses challenging regulations, environmental groups, and anyone involved in court cases reviewing government rules.
Ensures courts only consider high-quality, reliable science. This protects decisions from being based on weak or questionable evidence. Better science means better court rulings.
Makes it harder to overturn government regulations through unreliable science. Agencies can rely on their scientific decisions staying in place longer.
Gives courts a specific tool to evaluate scientific claims. Creates consistency in how different courts handle scientific evidence.
Filtering out weak evidence early might reduce lengthy court battles. Parties may settle faster knowing questionable science won't help their case.
Judges must decide what counts as reliable science, but they aren't scientists. Different judges might disagree on what's actually reliable.
Makes it tougher to challenge government rules, even when there's legitimate scientific debate. Excludes evidence could prevent valid concerns from being heard.
Established agencies have resources to produce expensive, standard science. Smaller groups or communities might struggle to meet the 'reliable science' standard.
The bill doesn't clearly explain how courts should determine if science is reliable. This vagueness could lead to unpredictable court decisions.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
SRES 929
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding equity stakes held by the Federal Government in private companies.
HR 5235
Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025
HR 2332
SHARE Act of 2026
HR 9191
National Fossil Act of 2026
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.