On December 2, 2025, Congressman Troy Balderson and Senator Tom Cotton introduced the Curtailing Litigation Excess and Abuse Reform Act (the CLEAR Act or the Act), which is designed to limit serial lawsuits challenging authorizations (e.g., permits, approvals, licenses) granted under federal law for “energy projects.” If enacted, the CLEAR Act will apply to a broad range of energy projects and will preclude serial challenges to authorizations granted under federal law. The Act defines an “energy project” to include projects for the development of facilities for (i) the generation, transmission, distribution, or storage of electric energy; (ii) the production, processing, transportation, or delivery of fossil fuels, fuels derived from petroleum, or petrochemical feedstocks; and (iii) the extraction, processing, refining, recycling, or transportation of critical minerals essential to energy production, grid reliability, or national security. An “authorization” encompasses licenses, permits, approvals, findings, determinations, administrative decisions, and interagency consultations required or authorized under federal law in order to site, construct, reconstruct, or commence operations of an energy project. This includes authorizations administered by (i) a federal agency or (ii) a state agency participating or administering a review required or authorized under federal law. Notably, purely state or local law approvals that are not required or authorized under federal law are outside the scope of the CLEAR Act. However, state approvals issued under delegated or cooperative federal programs do fall within the scope of authorizations covered by the Act.
The heart of the legislation is a single-action preclusion rule. After a legal action concerning any authorization of an energy project has been finally adjudicated on the record by a court of competent jurisdiction, no party can bring a subsequent legal action concerning any other aspect of the same project. This preclusion applies regardless of the parties, the form of relief sought, or the authorization being challenged. The statute treats an energy project and all associated authorizations as arising from a single “common nucleus of operative fact” in an attempt to collapse project-related challenges into a one-and-done litigation. Under the CLEAR Act, courts would lack jurisdiction to hear actions barred by this rule. The preclusive effect is only for the benefit of (1) the federal agency that issued an authorization and (2) the project sponsor; it does not create claim-preclusion rights for other parties.
The CLEAR Act does preserve judicial review for two categories of claims: (1) legal actions alleging operational violations of federal or state law occurring after project completion, and (2) enforcement actions by the United States or by a state in its sovereign capacity.
On judicial review, a court may find a federal agency failed to comply with procedural requirements needed to issue an authorization only if the agency abused its “substantial discretion” in issuing an authorization, and the court may not substitute its judgment for the agency’s. If a violation is found, the court’s remedy is limited to remand with specific instructions to correct the errors or deficiencies identified and a firm deadline, generally capped at 180 days after the order was entered. The authorizations will remain in effect during remand.
Finally, the Act establishes strict limitations on these two permitted categories of claims. Challenges must be filed within 150 days of the date the final agency action was made public unless a shorter timeline applies under federal law. For authorizations that had a public comment period, a challenger must have submitted a timely, substantive, and unique comment sufficient to put the agency on notice and demonstrate direct harm; the litigation must concern the same subject matter as that comment.
Notably, if the CLEAR Act passes, agencies must still comply with all statutory standards when issuing things like permits, licenses, and determinations. Overall, the CLEAR Act is poised to shorten litigation, standardize judicial deference, and curtail remedial uncertainty, which will help to lower delay risks for qualifying energy projects while preserving the substantive regulations governing the issuance of authorizations and the development of energy projects.