Consider eliminating judicial review of environmental review documents
What the document says“Consideration should be given, for example, to eliminating judicial review of the adequacy of NEPA documents”
The chapter raises this as something to consider rather than as a recommendation, and says it would allow Congress to engage in effective oversight of federal agencies when prudent. It separately asks that Trump-era environmental review reforms be restored, including time and page limits.
What the document actually says“Consideration should be given, for example, to eliminating judicial review of the adequacy of NEPA documents”
One idea is to stop courts checking these reports.
Big projects need a report on harm to nature. People can sue if the report is poor. The book says courts could be shut out of that. It offers this as an idea.
Unleashing American Energy
2025-01-20 · 90 FR 8353
Section 5(e) of Executive Order 14154 of January 20, 2025 directs the Director of the National Economic Council and the Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs to jointly prepare recommendations to Congress that provide greater certainty in the federal permitting process, including, but not limited to, streamlining the judicial review of the application of the National Environmental Policy Act. The passage raises eliminating judicial review as something to consider and directs it to Congress, and this is a directed step toward legislative recommendations on that question. The fit breaks down in that the order says streamlining rather than eliminating, it addresses judicial review of the application of the act rather than of the adequacy of environmental review documents, and the record indexed here does not show what the recommendations said or whether they were delivered.
The order tells two White House aides to draft advice for Congress on faster permits. The advice is to cover court review under the main environmental law. The book raised ending court review as something to weigh. But the order says streamline, not end. It covers how the law is applied, not whether a study was good enough. The record does not show what the advice said.