S 1355119th CongressIn Committee

REPAIR Act of 2025

Introduced: Apr 8, 2025

Standard Summary

Comprehensive overview in 1-2 paragraphs

The REPAIR Act of 2025 creates a unified, time-driven framework to govern judicial review of federal project authorizations that are approved under major environmental and natural resources statutes. It aims to speed up the permitting process by imposing tight deadlines, creating a mediation-and-remediation pathway after court rulings, and centralizing oversight through the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (the “Council”). The bill broadly defines what counts as an “authorization” and “authorizing legislation,” bringing many environmental reviews (and related authorizations) under a common set of review rules. A notable feature is a strong emphasis on remand and remediation rather than vacatur, with detailed procedures for how disputes are addressed and reauthorized. It also places new requirements on venue, case assignment, and public reporting of judicial-review timelines, and it imposes a NEPA-related standing limitation intended to curb litigation challenges tied to environmental reviews. At a high level, the bill shifts the incentives in project permitting toward faster resolution and reauthorization after court actions, while constraining certain avenues for challenging those authorizations under NEPA. It would affect project sponsors (often private or public-private entities), federal agencies that issue authorizations, environmental groups, and courts adjudicating these claims.

Key Points

1Broad, unified definition of authorizing laws and authorizations
2- Defines “authorization” to include licenses, permits, approvals, findings, consultations, etc., required to design, site, construct, operate, or modify a project, and lists a wide group of federal environmental and resource laws (e.g., Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, NEPA, Magnuson-Stevens Act, etc.) as potential “authorizing legislation.”
3- Establishes “agency of jurisdiction” (the agency responsible for approving the authorization) and “project sponsor” (the entity seeking approval.
4Strict time limits for judicial review
5- Initial claims: must be filed within 120 days after the final agency action for the initial authorization, unless a shorter deadline applies by another law.
6- Subsequent actions related to the initial claim (e.g., injunctions) must be filed within 120 days of the initial claim.
7- Other claims tied to the issuance of an authorization remain governed by a different subsection (d), but the framework pushes for prompt progression toward remediation and reauthorization.
8Default remedy and limited relief
9- If a court finds noncompliance with authorizing legislation, the default remedy is remand (sending the decision back to the agency). Courts may not vacate or enjoin an authorization unless there is imminent and substantial danger with no other equitable remedy.
10Right of action and standing requirements
11- A claimant must show direct and tangible harm caused by the authorization that was not analyzed in the initial authorization to have standing to sue.
12- If harm is not analyzed, the claimant may pursue a claim; otherwise, standing is limited.
13Mediation and remediation after court actions
14- If an authorization is enjoined, remanded, or vacated, the project sponsor and the agency must engage in mediation overseen by the Council to reauthorize the project.
15- A remediation plan must be proposed within 60 days; extensions up to 120 days can be granted. The remediation plan should address issues identified by the court and may be altered through negotiation between sponsor and agency.
16- If the agency fails to propose or submit a remediation plan on time, the Council may approve the sponsor’s remediation proposal and direct reauthorization.
17- A final remediation plan (not more than 50 pages) guides reauthorization, and there are timelines for acceptance, public disclosure, and implementation.
18Reauthorization and timelines
19- After a final remediation plan is completed, the agency must reauthorize all applicable authorizations within 15 days. If the agency fails to do so, the sponsor may proceed with actions reliant on the authorization.
20Venue, assignment, and transparency
21- Claims must be filed in a specified judicial venue (typically the court with jurisdiction over the project location or the court hosting the largest financial investment).
22- District and appellate courts should randomly assign cases to judges to minimize bias.
23- The Council must maintain a public database of claims that are subject to judicial review but have not been adjudicated within 90 days, with annual or more frequent reporting to Congress and publication in the Federal Register.
24- The annual (or more frequent) reports cover late cases, courts with multiple late cases, judges with multiple late cases, and other data to ensure timely reviews.
25NEPA judicial standing limitations
26- Title I of NEPA is amended to state that NEPA environmental reviews do not create a judicial right of action to challenge the approval of an authorization for a project that uses such an environmental review. In other words, if a project uses an applicable environmental review under NEPA, the act restricts separate standing to sue under NEPA’s framework for that approval.
27Existing authorizations and reviews
28- The act preserves existing rights of action where they already exist under other environmental laws or procedures.
29- It also preserves certain rights to appeal if a project was previously denied or if attempts to address issues identified by a court are rejected, allowing resubmission in a way that addresses prior concerns.

Impact Areas

Primary groups/areas affected- Project sponsors and developers seeking federal authorizations for large or complex projects (e.g., energy, infrastructure, land development, offshore activities): potential benefits include faster timelines, a structured path to reauthorization after court action, and a clearer process for remediation.- Federal agencies that issue authorizations: will face new mediation, remediation planning requirements, and tighter timelines; the need to coordinate with the FAST Act’s Council and manage remediation plans.- Courts and the judiciary: may experience a more standardized, time-bound workflow for environmental-review-related cases, with new reporting requirements and random assignment to reduce perceived bias.Secondary groups/areas affected- Environmental and public-interest groups: could experience reduced ability to stall projects via litigation, given tighter deadlines and a shift toward remediation-and-reauthorization rather than outright vacatur; however, standing constraints may limit certain NEPA-related challenges.- State and local authorities: potential changes in how environmental reviews and federal authorizations interact with state programs and permitting timelines.- Administrative infrastructure and transparency initiatives: the public database and annual reporting would increase visibility into environmental-review timelines and court backlogs.Additional impacts- Administrative costs and resource demands: agencies and sponsors may face higher upfront costs to prepare remediation plans and to engage in mediation, but could benefit from more predictable timelines.- Legal landscape: the bill would reorient environmental litigation toward remediation and reauthorization, potentially reducing some forms of judicial review while increasing the use of mediation as a core step.- NEPA landscape: the new standing limitation could constrain certain challenges that currently rely on NEPA-based legal action, affecting how environmental impacts are contested.

Generated by gpt-5-nano on Oct 31, 2025