Overview
Title
To prescribe judicial review requirements for certain projects, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The REPAIR Act of 2025 wants to make the rules simpler and faster for checking if big projects follow important laws. It suggests having only 120 days to ask courts to look at decisions, helping everyone understand when they can speak up about these projects.
Summary AI
S. 1355, the "REPAIR Act of 2025," aims to streamline the judicial review process for projects requiring federal authorizations under various environmental and regulatory laws. It sets a 120-day deadline for filing claims seeking judicial review of initial project authorizations and establishes a mediation process involving the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council if an authorization is challenged. The bill mandates the publication of judicial review time periods in a public database, ensuring transparency, and specifies conditions under which courts may remand or vacate authorizations. It also restricts the judicial right of action under the National Environmental Policy Act unless a direct and tangible harm can be demonstrated.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The United States Congress is considering a legislative proposal titled the "Revising and Enhancing Project Authorizations Impacted by Review Act of 2025," often referred to as the "REPAIR Act of 2025." This bill aims to set specific judicial review requirements for certain projects, which could include public and private infrastructure developments subject to federal environmental reviews.
General Summary of the Bill
The REPAIR Act of 2025 lays out detailed guidelines about how legal reviews of federally-authorized projects should be conducted. It establishes definitions for critical terms like "agency," "authorization," and "project" and specifies the timelines and frameworks for legal claims and reviews of project approvals. The bill also outlines mediation and alteration processes if a project's authorization is challenged in court. Lastly, it amends the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to further define judicial standing for environmental project reviews.
Significant Issues
Complex Definitions and References: The bill contains numerous cross-references to existing laws and is filled with legal jargon that may not be immediately clear to stakeholders or the general public. This complexity could hinder understanding of the bill’s practical implications.
Tight Judicial Review Deadlines: The timelines for filing claims for project authorizations are relatively short, which might lead to rushed legal and administrative processes. There is concern that this emphasis on speed might come at the expense of thoroughness and fairness.
Limited Judicial Recourse: The bill limits the ability for parties to challenge project authorizations unless they suffer direct harm not previously assessed, potentially excluding valid concerns from affected parties. It could restrict open access to legal redress for some stakeholders.
Retroactive Provisions: The retroactive application of new judicial review procedures to existing projects raises legal concerns. It changes the rules under which original project approvals might have been granted, leading to potential disputes.
Undefined Council: The term "Council" is used, but its lack of definition leaves ambiguities about which body is responsible for overseeing various tasks outlined in the bill, possibly impacting accountability and transparency.
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, this bill might streamline project approvals and legal challenges, potentially leading to faster infrastructure development. However, the limitations on who can bring legal challenges and the reduced periods for review could mean less public input in governmental decisions affecting community environments and public health.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Government Agencies and Developers: Federal agencies and developers might benefit from more straightforward and timely reviews, potentially preventing project delays due to lengthy legal challenges. It could lead to quicker project deliveries and reduced administrative burdens.
Environmental and Community Groups: These stakeholders might view the bill negatively due to restricted rights to challenge projects, particularly concerning the reduced scope for judicial action under NEPA. They may argue that it could curtail community and environmental advocacy.
Industry and Business: Entities seeking project approvals might see this bill positively, as it potentially provides greater predictability, reduces the time in limbo due to legal challenges, and could lead to quicker economic benefits from new projects.
In conclusion, while the REPAIR Act of 2025 aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial review process for federally authorized projects, it raises concerns about limited public engagement and reduced legal recourse for affected communities and groups. The balance between economic development and environmental and community protections remains a key point of contention.
Issues
The definitions in Section 2 are complex and may cause confusion due to numerous cross-references to other pieces of legislation, making them difficult for the general public and stakeholders to understand without further research.
Section 3's judicial review processes impose tight deadlines and limit opportunities for judicial recourse, which may rush legal and administrative processes, potentially prioritizing speed over thoroughness and legal fairness.
The involvement limitations on individuals seeking to challenge authorizations in Section 3 could prevent valid claims by affected parties from being heard, particularly if harm wasn't analyzed in the initial approval.
The retroactive application of new judicial review requirements on existing projects in Section 3 could create legal challenges, as it alters the rules under which projects were initially approved, potentially leading to disputes.
The term 'Council' used throughout Section 3 is undefined, leaving ambiguity about which specific body or group is accountable for various actions, potentially impacting transparency and accountability.
The language and references throughout the bill, such as those in Section 4, are complex and may be difficult for the general public to follow, limiting stakeholders' ability to fully understand their rights and implications without extensive legal knowledge.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act states its short title, officially naming it the “Revising and Enhancing Project Authorizations Impacted by Review Act of 2025” or simply the “REPAIR Act of 2025”.
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section defines important terms used in the bill, including what an "agency" is and what an "authorization" entails. It outlines various federal laws considered as "authorizing legislation" and explains terms like "Council," "direct and tangible harm," "environmental review," "project," and "project sponsor."
3. Judicial review Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section outlines the rules for judicial review of authorizations for projects, including filing deadlines for claims and subsequent actions, criteria for challenging authorizations, and the process for mediation and reauthorization if a project's authorization is legally challenged. It also mandates public reporting of judicial review timelines and ensures transparency and accountability in the review process.
4. Judicial standing under NEPA Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the National Environmental Policy Act to clarify that it does not grant individuals the legal right to challenge the approval of projects using certain environmental reviews in court, as defined by the REPAIR Act of 2025.
112. Judicial standing Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section states that this title and any related environmental reviews, as defined by the REPAIR Act of 2025, do not grant the right to sue under this title or specific parts of the United States Code commonly known as the "Administrative Procedure Act," concerning the approval of authorizations for projects using these reviews.