Abstract: Judicial practice in our country is facing the real dilemma of fragmented legislation related to biodiversity and unclear regulatory goals. When the court reviews cases of administrative omissions on biodiversity, the review of biodiversity damage lacks pertinence; in judging whether administrative omissions are illegal, the content of judicial review by courts is incomplete and inconsistent in intensity, and the results are usually adopted. The standard is to use the actual results of ecological environment damage as the standard for judging whether the administrative omission is illegal. This high-intensity review method objectively violates the principle of statutory powers. Therefore, for the improvement of judicial review of administrative omissions of biodiversity, biodiversity indicators should be included in judicial evidence to ensure a comprehensive and targeted review of biodiversity damage; a procedural review method should be adopted to deal with administrative omissions. a comprehensive review of the discretionary behavior of the government should be conducted to determine whether the administrative omission is illegal, and at the same time adjust the intensity of judicial review reasonably based on the principle of judicial respect.