CLEAR Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 6352
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Energy
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-12-02: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-01-07T17:39:31Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The CLEAR Act of 2025 aims to limit repeated lawsuits against energy projects by treating all related approvals as a single matter for legal purposes, streamlining judicial review, and imposing strict deadlines. This is intended to reduce delays in developing energy infrastructure while preserving limited avenues for post-construction enforcement.
Key Provisions
- Definitions:
- Authorization: Any federal or state license, permit, approval, or decision required to build or operate an energy project.
- Completion: When the project starts commercial operations or energy production/delivery (excluding ongoing construction).
- Energy project: Facilities for generating, transmitting, storing, or distributing electric energy; producing or transporting fossil fuels or petrochemicals; or extracting/processing critical minerals vital for energy, grid reliability, or national security.
- Legal action: Court claims seeking to challenge, modify, or overturn an authorization (excluding eminent domain disputes over fair market value by landowners).
- Preclusion of Repeat Litigation:
- All authorizations for a single energy project are treated as interconnected facts for applying res judicata (a legal principle that prevents re-litigating settled issues).
- Once a court fully decides a case on the merits (with no appeal possible), no further lawsuits can be filed on any aspect of the same project, regardless of who files, what relief is sought, or which specific approval is challenged.
- Courts lose jurisdiction over barred claims.
- This protection can only be raised by the issuing federal agency or the project sponsor; it does not create new rights for others.
- Exceptions to Preclusion:
- Lawsuits over operational violations of law after project completion.
- Government enforcement actions to ensure legal compliance.
- Judicial Review Standards:
- Courts can only find a federal agency failed procedural requirements (e.g., environmental reviews) if the agency "abused its substantial discretion" (a high bar meaning clear misuse of authority).
- Courts must defer to the agency's factual findings and judgments, without substituting their own views.
- If remanding (sending back) an authorization for fixes, courts must provide specific instructions, a deadline of no more than 180 days, and allow the authorization to stay in effect during corrections.
- Claims are barred unless filed within 150 days of public notice of the final agency decision (or shorter if required by law).
- For projects with public comment periods, only those who submitted detailed, unique comments showing direct harm can sue, and only on issues raised in those comments.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Introduces a "single action rule" that consolidates all project-related approvals into one legal bundle, overriding prior laws allowing separate challenges to different permits.
- Modifies the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, a key federal law for reviewing agency actions) by raising the bar for procedural challenges, requiring proof of "abuse of substantial discretion" instead of the usual "arbitrary and capricious" standard.
- Adds mandatory 150-day filing limits and standing requirements tied to public comments, which are stricter than many existing statutes of limitations.
- Ensures remanded authorizations remain valid during fixes, preventing automatic halts that often delay projects under current law.
Potential Impacts
- Government Agencies: Reduces litigation burden, allowing faster processing of energy approvals and fewer disruptions to permitting timelines; agencies gain stronger defenses but must adhere to tight remand deadlines.
- Citizens and Communities: Limits opportunities for multiple challenges to projects, potentially restricting environmental, health, or local groups' ability to seek relief; however, post-completion enforcement remains available for ongoing issues.
- Energy Project Sponsors: Accelerates project timelines by curbing repeat suits, lowering legal costs, and maintaining approvals during reviews, which could boost investment in energy infrastructure.
- International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it may enhance U.S. energy security by speeding up domestic production of critical minerals and fossil fuels, indirectly affecting global energy markets.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Energy Developers and Sponsors: Primary beneficiaries, as they can invoke preclusion to protect projects from prolonged legal fights.
- Federal and State Agencies: Issuers of authorizations (e.g., Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency) gain tools to defend decisions but face pressure from short correction timelines.
- Environmental and Advocacy Groups: Adversely affected, as their ability to file successive or broad challenges is curtailed, requiring earlier, more specific participation.
- Landowners and Local Communities: Protected in eminent domain value disputes but otherwise limited in blocking projects; post-completion rights preserved for violations.
- Courts and Judiciary: Role narrowed to deferential review, reducing caseloads related to energy projects but potentially shifting more enforcement to agencies.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Strengthens agency deference under administrative law, potentially reducing judicial oversight of energy permitting; aligns with trends favoring efficient infrastructure but may conflict with statutes like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by limiting iterative challenges.
- Constitutional: Could raise access-to-courts concerns under the Due Process Clause if seen as overly restricting legitimate claims, though it preserves core review rights and exceptions; Congress has authority to regulate federal procedures without violating separation of powers.
- Political: Promotes pro-development policies for energy independence, likely appealing to industry and national security interests, but may draw criticism for tilting toward project sponsors over public input, influencing debates on balancing economic growth with environmental protections.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Balderson, Troy [R-OH-12]
Recent Actions
- 2025-12-02: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-12-02: Introduced in House
- 2025-12-02: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Curtailing Litigation Excess and Abuse Reform Act of 2025 — issued 2025-12-02 — PDF (8 pages)