Curtailing Litigation Excess and Abuse Reform Act of 2025; CLEAR Act of 2025
Summary
The Curtailing Litigation Excess and Abuse Reform Act of 2025 (CLEAR Act) aims to expedite energy project development by limiting legal challenges. It seeks to preclude repeat litigation against energy projects by establishing a 'single action rule,' preventing subsequent legal actions after a final adjudication. The Act also modifies judicial review standards, granting deference to federal agencies and setting strict deadlines for legal actions.
Expected Effects
The CLEAR Act is likely to accelerate the development and completion of energy projects. This will be achieved by reducing the risk of legal delays and streamlining the judicial review process. However, it could also limit the ability of concerned parties to challenge project authorizations, potentially impacting environmental and community interests.
Potential Benefits
- Faster Energy Project Completion: Streamlined legal processes could lead to quicker development of energy infrastructure.
- Reduced Litigation Costs: Limiting repeat litigation could lower costs for both project sponsors and federal agencies.
- Increased Energy Security: Expedited project development may enhance energy production and grid reliability.
- Greater Investment Certainty: Reduced legal uncertainty could encourage investment in energy projects.
- Agency Deference: Courts must defer to agency expertise on project authorizations.
Potential Disadvantages
- Limited Legal Recourse: The 'single action rule' restricts the ability to challenge energy project authorizations.
- Reduced Environmental Oversight: Streamlined judicial review could weaken environmental safeguards.
- Disregard for Community Concerns: Restrictions on legal actions may marginalize community concerns about project impacts.
- Potential for Abuse: Reduced oversight could lead to inadequate consideration of environmental and social impacts.
- Reduced Public Input: Limits on legal actions may reduce incentives for agencies to thoroughly consider public comments.
Constitutional Alignment
The Act's preclusion of repeat litigation could be viewed as potentially conflicting with the principles of due process and access to the courts, raising concerns under the Fifth Amendment. However, proponents might argue that it aligns with the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) by facilitating energy projects that impact interstate commerce. The limitations on judicial review could also be seen as impinging on the judiciary's role in reviewing executive actions.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).