REPAIR Act Proposes Faster Project Approvals by Limiting Court Challenges and NEPA Lawsuits

The REPAIR Act of 2025 aims to significantly speed up the approval process for major projects, like energy infrastructure or large developments, by changing how legal challenges are handled. Essentially, it tightens the timeline for lawsuits against project 'authorizations' – the permits and approvals needed under various federal laws like the Clean Air Act or Endangered Species Act – and limits the courts' power to stop or alter these projects once approved.

Shorter Leash for Legal Challenges

Under this bill (SEC. 3), anyone challenging an initial project authorization in court gets a strict 120-day window from the final agency decision to file their claim. Any follow-up actions, like requesting a judge to pause the project (an injunction), must happen within 120 days after the initial claim is filed. Miss these deadlines, and the challenge could be invalidated. This significantly shortens the time currently available under some laws, potentially making it harder for community groups or individuals to mount a legal challenge if they believe a project's approval was flawed or harmful. For example, if a federal agency approves a permit for a new pipeline, opponents would have roughly four months to get their lawsuit filed.

Courts' Hands Tied? New Rules for Remedies

If a court does find an agency messed up – maybe they didn't follow the proper environmental review process – the default action under this bill (SEC. 3) isn't necessarily to stop the project. Instead, the court's primary option is to send the authorization back to the agency to fix the errors ('remand'). Actually halting or changing an approved project would require proving it poses an "imminent and substantial danger to human health or the environment" with no other legal fix available. This sets a very high bar. Imagine a scenario where a permit is legally flawed but doesn't meet that 'imminent danger' threshold; construction could continue while the agency reworks the paperwork.

Who Can Sue, and What About NEPA?

The bill also narrows who can bring a lawsuit (SEC. 3). A person must show they will suffer "direct and tangible harm" – defined as physical illness, injury, or uncompensated economic loss directly caused by the project – that wasn't already considered during the approval. This could make it difficult for individuals concerned about broader environmental impacts, like habitat loss or climate effects, to get standing in court. Furthermore, Section 4 explicitly aims to prevent lawsuits brought under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) itself regarding project approvals. Since NEPA is a cornerstone law requiring environmental impact assessments and often the basis for challenging inadequate reviews, blocking these specific lawsuits is a major shift, potentially removing a key tool for environmental oversight.

Mediation Takes Center Stage

When a court does manage to halt or send back an authorization, the bill mandates a new mediation process (SEC. 3). The project sponsor (the company or agency wanting the project) and the relevant agency must enter mediation overseen by the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council ('the Council'). This Council has tight deadlines (typically 60 days) to develop a 'remediation plan,' ideally using existing data, and direct the agency to reauthorize the project. If deadlines are missed by the agency or the Council, the project sponsor's plan can effectively become the default. This process seems designed to quickly resolve court-ordered setbacks and get projects back on track, potentially limiting further public or judicial scrutiny after the initial court decision. Importantly, these changes, including the judicial review limits, apply retroactively to projects already in the pipeline or under review.