A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration relating to "Rescinding the Definition of 'Harm' Under the Endangered Species Act".
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 15, 2026
Bottom line
S.J. Res. 204 is a Congressional Review Act resolution aiming to block an administrative rule that would narrow the definition of "Harm" under the Endangered Species Act, thereby preserving protections for endangered species' habitats.
What it actually does
This joint resolution, introduced under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), seeks to nullify a final rule issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The rule in question rescinded the definition of "Harm" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). If enacted, this resolution would prevent the rescission from taking effect, thereby maintaining the previous, broader definition of "Harm" which includes habitat modification.
Proponents argue
Proponents of this resolution argue that the administrative rule to rescind the definition of "Harm" undermines the core intent of the Endangered Species Act by weakening protections for critical habitat. They contend that a broad definition of "Harm," encompassing habitat modification, is essential for effective conservation and preventing species extinction, aligning with decades of established environmental policy and scientific understanding.
Opponents contend
Opponents of this resolution (and thus proponents of the administrative rule) would argue that the previous definition of "Harm" was overly broad, imposing undue regulatory burdens on landowners, developers, and industries. They might contend that narrowing the definition allows for greater economic activity and flexibility while still providing adequate protections for species through other mechanisms, or that it restores a more appropriate balance between conservation and economic development.
The bill text is extremely short and can be read in under a minute, making it highly accessible for immediate understanding of its direct action.
Section 1
Congressional Disapproval of Rule Rescinding 'Harm' Definition
This provision states that Congress disapproves of the rule published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (91 Fed. Reg. 43300 (July 14, 2026)) which aimed to rescind the definition of "Harm" under the Endangered Species Act. By disapproving this rule, the resolution ensures that the rescission does not take effect, effectively maintaining the existing, broader definition of "Harm" that includes significant habitat modification or degradation.
Supporters argue
Supporters of this disapproval resolution argue that maintaining a robust definition of "Harm" is crucial for fulfilling the ESA's purpose of preventing species extinction. They contend that habitat destruction is a primary driver of species decline, and excluding habitat modification from the definition of "Harm" would severely cripple conservation efforts, making it harder to protect species before they are directly killed or injured.
Critics contend
Opponents of this resolution (and supporters of the original administrative rule) would argue that the previous definition of "Harm" extended beyond the plain language of the ESA, creating an overly expansive regulatory reach that impedes economic development and private property rights. They might assert that the agencies should have the flexibility to refine definitions to reduce regulatory burdens while still protecting species through other means, and that the previous definition led to excessive litigation and uncertainty.
Tradeoffs
This provision highlights the fundamental tension between environmental protection, particularly habitat conservation, and economic development or private property rights. It forces a choice between a broad interpretation of "Harm" that prioritizes habitat protection and a narrower interpretation that seeks to reduce regulatory burdens on land use and industry.