To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act does not include any evidence that the court determines is not the product of reliable scientific principles and methods.

If passed, this bill would lower the bar for industry challenges to EPA clean air rules, clean water standards, endangered species protections, and occupational safety rules. It would increase litigation risk for regulations—agencies would need to anticipate stricter judicial scrutiny of the studies and methodologies underlying rules. Historical parallel: the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA required EPA to justify its refusal to regulate greenhouse gases, but the decision did not give courts power to overturn EPA's scientific methods—only to ensure the agency followed statutory procedure. This bill goes further by allowing courts to exclude scientific evidence based on reliability. The effect would be similar to state-level 'tort reform' laws that raise the bar for scientific expert testimony in civil litigation—those laws have been documented to reduce successful product liability suits and worker compensation claims, making it harder for plaintiffs to prove causation. Applied to administrative law, the result would be more successful industry challenges to regulations, delayed implementation of rules, and increased regulatory uncertainty. Agencies would face pressure to conduct more elaborate studies and justify every methodological choice in anticipation of judicial scrutiny.