H.R. 6352

[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>