No official summary available for this bill.
[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6352 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
119th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 6352
To preclude repeat litigation involving energy projects, and for other
purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 2, 2025
Mr. Balderson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To preclude repeat litigation involving energy projects, and for other
purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Curtailing Litigation Excess and
Abuse Reform Act of 2025'' or the ``CLEAR Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. PRECLUSION OF REPEAT LITIGATION.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Authorization.--The term ``authorization'' means any
license, permit, approval, finding, determination, or
administrative decision issued by an agency and any interagency
consultation that is required or authorized under Federal law
in order to site, construct, reconstruct, or commence
operations of an energy project administered by--
(A) a Federal agency; or
(B) in the case of a State participating in or
administering a review required or authorized under
Federal law, as applicable, a State agency.
(2) Completion.--
(A) In general.--The term ``completion'', with
respect to an energy project, means the earlier of--
(i) the date that the energy project
commences commercial operation; and
(ii) the date that the energy project
begins production or delivery of energy or
resources.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``completion'', with
respect to an energy project, does not include
construction activities pertaining to the energy
project.
(3) Energy project.--The term ``energy project'' means a
project for the development of a facility for--
(A) the generation, transmission, distribution, or
storage of electric energy;
(B) the production, processing, transportation, or
delivery of fossil fuels, fuels derived from petroleum,
or petrochemical feedstocks; or
(C) the extraction, processing, refining,
recycling, or transportation of critical minerals
essential to energy production, grid reliability, or
national security.
(4) Legal action.--
(A) In general.--The term ``legal action'' means a
legal claim brought in a Federal or State court of
competent jurisdiction pursuant to applicable law to
remand, reverse, rescind, overturn, modify, or
otherwise seek judicial relief (including equitable
relief) with respect to an authorization for an energy
project.
(B) Exception.--The term ``legal action'' does not
include a legal claim involving an authorization for an
energy project brought by a landowner for the fair
market value of property which has been or may be
acquired by eminent domain authority exercised pursuant
to applicable Federal law.
(b) Preclusion.--
(1) Common nucleus of operative fact.--For the purposes of
this section and res judicata, an energy project and all
associated authorizations for that energy project shall be
considered the common nucleus of operative fact giving rise to
any legal action under Federal law.
(2) Single action rule.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, once a legal action or a claim
involving any other aspect of an energy project has
been finally adjudicated on the record by a court of
competent jurisdiction, no subsequent legal action or a
claim involving any aspect of an energy project may be
brought in any Federal or State court with respect to
the same energy project, regardless of--
(i) the identity of the parties;
(ii) the form of relief sought; or
(iii) whether the subsequent legal action
or claim challenges a different authorization
or agency decision related to the same energy
project.
(B) Final adjudication.--A final adjudication under
subparagraph (A) includes any judgment, degree, or
order issued by a court that disposes of the legal
action on the merits and is not subject to appeal.
(3) Jurisdiction.--No Federal or State court shall have
jurisdiction to hear or consider any legal action barred under
paragraph (2).
(c) Effect.--
(1) In general.--The preclusive effect established pursuant
to subsection (b) is solely for the benefit of, and may only be
asserted by--
(A) the Federal agency that issued an authorization
for the applicable energy project; or
(B) the project sponsor of the applicable energy
project.
(2) No expansion of rights.--Nothing in this section
creates, enlarges, or recognizes any right of action, defense,
or claim preclusion on behalf of any party other than--
(A) the Federal agency that issued an authorization
for the applicable energy project; and
(B) the project sponsor of the applicable energy
project.
(d) Exceptions.--Nothing in this section precludes judicial review
of--
(1) a legal action alleging operational violations of
Federal or State law occurring after completion of the energy
project; or
(2) an enforcement action brought by the United States or a
State in its sovereign capacity to ensure compliance with
applicable law.
SEC. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Standard of Review.--Notwithstanding chapter 7 of title 5,
United States Code, in reviewing a legal action, a court may hold that
an applicable Federal agency did not adequately comply with the
procedural requirements needed to issue the authorization only if the
court determines that the applicable Federal agency abused its
substantial discretion in complying with the procedural requirements in
issuing the authorization.
(b) Role of the Court.--A court reviewing a legal action described
in subsection (a) shall defer to the applicable Federal agency and may
not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the applicable Federal
agency regarding factual determinations or the scope of review for
issuance of the authorization.
(c) Remand.--
(1) In general.--If a court holds that an applicable
Federal agency failed to adequately comply with the procedural
requirements needed to issue an authorization under subsection
(a), the court may only remand the authorization to the Federal
agency with--
(A) specific instruction to correct the errors or
deficiencies in compliance; and
(B) a reasonable schedule and deadline, subject to
the condition that the deadline may not exceed--
(i) with respect to an order entered on or
after the date of enactment of this Act, the
date that is 180 days after the date on which
the order was entered; and
(ii) with respect to an order entered
before the date of enactment of this Act, the
date that is 180 days after that date of
enactment.
(2) Continued effect.--An authorization remanded under
paragraph (1) shall remain in effect while the Federal agency
corrects any errors or deficiencies specified by the court.
(d) Limitations on Claims.--Notwithstanding chapter 7 of title 5,
United States Code, a legal action described in subsection (a) shall be
barred unless--
(1) the legal action is filed not later than 150 days after
the date on which the final agency action regarding the
applicable authorization is made public, unless a shorter
timeline is specified under Federal law; and
(2) in the case of an authorization for which there was a
public comment period, the legal action--
(A) is filed by a party that submitted a
substantive and unique comment during a public comment
period by the noticed comment deadline and that comment
was sufficiently detailed to put the applicable Federal
agency on notice of the issue on which the party seeks
review and shows that the party would suffer direct
harm if the comment was not addressed; and
(B) concerns the same subject matter raised in the
comment submitted during the public comment period.
<all>
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Llama 3.2 · runs locally in your browser
Ask anything about this bill. The AI reads the full text to answer.
Enter to send · Shift+Enter for new line