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.

119th Congress Introduced by Harriet Hageman

The bill would bar courts from considering APA-challenge evidence not based on reliable scientific principles and methods, narrowing judicial review.

Introduced in House

Summary of HR 9277 (119th Congress)

Purpose and intent

HR 9277 proposes amendments to title 5 of the United States Code to restrict the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) review available in courts. Specifically, it would bar judicial consideration under the APA of any evidence that the court determines is not the product of reliable scientific principles and methods. In short, the bill aims to limit the types of evidence that can be relied upon or cited in APA challenges to agency actions by excluding evidence deemed scientifically unreliable.

Key provisions and changes

Amends: Title 5, United States Code (the APA)

Core change: Evidence introduced in APA challenges cannot be considered by courts if the court determines that the evidence is not derived from reliable scientific principles and methods.

Implication: Courts would have a clearer gatekeeping role to exclude certain forms of scientific evidence from APA review if the evidence fails to meet established standards of reliability.

Scope: Applies to judicial review of agency actions under the APA. The bill does not specify procedural changes to agency rulemaking itself beyond the evidentiary standards in court review.

Who or what would be affected

Judicial review: Courts reviewing agency actions under the APA would apply the reliability-based exclusion to evidence presented in such challenges.

Agencies and proponents of agency action: Potentially affected insofar as the evidentiary record they can rely on in defending agency actions might be limited by this standard.

Litigants challenging agency actions: Parties invoking APA review could be constrained in using evidence deemed unreliable under the court’s assessment of scientific reliability.

Procedural and timeline aspects

Action history: Introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on June 11, 2026.

Sponsorship: Co-sponsored by Harriet Hageman.

Next steps: Committee consideration, potential passage by the House, and thereafter consideration by the Senate (as with most bills) would determine its progress. The bill’s specific text would govern how courts assess “reliable scientific principles and methods,” including any definitional or methodological criteria.

Potential impacts and considerations

Legal and scientific standards: The bill centralizes a reliability gatekeeping function in APA proceedings, potentially elevating standards for what counts as admissible or persuasive scientific evidence in court review.

Access to evidence: If applied broadly, some scientific evidence may be excluded from APA challenges, affecting the rigor and scope of judicial review.

Debates may arise over how reliability is defined, who assesses it, and what kinds of evidence (expert reports, data analyses, models, etc.) would be affected.

Note: This summary reflects the bill’s stated provisions as of the provided action history. For precise definitions, thresholds of reliability, and application details, the bill’s full text and any committee reports would be the primary sources.