A Republican bill with 14 Republican cosponsors · See all 14 cosponsors
Last activity — Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 14 - 9.
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
What this bill would do
The "Protect LNG Act of 2025" aims to address how litigation impacts applications to export liquefied natural gas. It establishes that civil actions regarding environmental reviews will not affect the validity of a permit, license, or approval for a covered facility. If a court finds an environmental review violated the Natural Gas Act or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the court cannot vacate the approval but must remand it to the relevant agency instead. The bill also grants exclusive jurisdiction over these civil actions to specific United States Courts of Appeals. Additionally, it mandates expedited review for these legal actions. Finally, it sets a 90-day limit for filing claims seeking judicial review of agency actions regarding these facilities.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +6
Would business owners be better off under this?
Energy sector business owners benefit from increased regulatory certainty and faster project timelines.
- Scored +5
Does this make trade with other countries easier?
By facilitating LNG exports, the bill could strengthen energy trade relations and bolster international energy supplies.
- Scored +4
Is this likely to grow the economy?
The bill promotes economic growth by reducing legal uncertainties and delays in the natural gas export market.
The opposite· 3 of 9
- Scored -5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill limits judicial authority to vacate permits even when environmental review violations are found, potentially weakening environmental protections.
- Scored -5
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Limiting judicial review of environmental assessments can negatively impact indigenous communities often reliant on land protection.
- Scored -4
Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced?
The bill specifically facilitates the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure rather than reducing it.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Issued Permits: Under Section 3(a), a civil action relating to an environmental review will not affect the validity of a permit, license, or approval issued to a covered facility. This ensures that the approval remains in place while legal challenges are processed.
-
Resolution via Remand instead of Vacatur: According to Section 3(b)(1), if a court finds an environmental review violated specific laws, the court cannot set aside or vacate the approval. Instead, the matter is remanded to the relevant Federal agency to resolve the violation, which allows the agency to continue processing covered applications per Section 3(b)(2).
-
Faster Legal Resolution: Section 4(b) requires the applicable United States Court of Appeals to set civil actions for expedited review and place them on the docket as soon as practicable. This is intended to speed up the judicial process.
-
Defined Jurisdiction: Section 4(a) provides that the court of appeals for the circuit where a covered facility is located or will be located has original and exclusive jurisdiction over these civil actions, except for review in the Supreme Court.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Limited Judicial Authority: Under Section 3(b)(1), even if a court finds that an environmental review violated the Natural Gas Act or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the court is prohibited from setting aside or vacating the permit, license, or approval, and must instead remand the matter to the agency.
-
Strict Deadlines for Claims: Section 4(d) states that a claim seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or approval for a covered facility is barred unless the claim is filed no later than 90 days after the publication of a notice in the Federal Register announcing the action is final, unless a shorter time is specified in Federal law.
-
Transfer of Legal Proceedings: Under Section 4(c), existing petitions for review may be transferred to the court of appeals in the circuit where the covered facility is located or will be located upon a motion by the applicant.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Is this likely to lower the price at the pump? — Increased efficiency in LNG exports could potentially lead to more stable domestic or global energy pricing. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill limits judicial authority to vacate permits even when environmental review violations are found, potentially weakening environmental protections. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — The bill specifically facilitates the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure rather than reducing it. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — By making it harder to challenge LNG permits via litigation, the bill may prolong reliance on fossil fuels. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Reducing judicial oversight may impact how agency actions regarding land and energy use are scrutinized.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — The bill promotes economic growth by reducing legal uncertainties and delays in the natural gas export market. Is this likely to create jobs? — By streamlining the export process for LNG, the bill may facilitate industrial growth and job creation in the energy sector. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill limits the ability of judicial review to halt projects, which could reduce oversight on environmental impacts affecting consumers.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this make trade with other countries easier? — By facilitating LNG exports, the bill could strengthen energy trade relations and bolster international energy supplies.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill centralizes authority within federal agencies by limiting the ability of courts to vacate their decisions. Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — The bill facilitates more efficient interstate and international energy commerce by streamlining the regulatory process. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill limits judicial authority to vacate approvals and imposes strict 90-day windows for filing claims, which restricts traditional due process. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The expedited review and specific jurisdictional rules may limit the transparency and duration of public legal challenges. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill limits judicial review at the federal level, which can also limit various forms of oversight that states might utilize.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Energy sector business owners benefit from increased regulatory certainty and faster project timelines. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Limiting judicial review of environmental assessments can negatively impact indigenous communities often reliant on land protection.
- 9/17/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/15/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/10/2025
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 14 - 9.
- 9/8/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/21/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/30/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 6/23/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/10/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/9/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/3/2025
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 5/23/2025
- Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Michael BaumgartnerRepublican · Washington
Michael CloudRepublican · Texas
Dan CrenshawRepublican · Texas
Jake EllzeyRepublican · Texas
Pat FallonRepublican · Texas
Michael GuestRepublican · Mississippi
Brandon GillRepublican · Texas
Michael McCaulRepublican · Texas
Troy NehlsRepublican · Texas
August PflugerRepublican · Texas
Keith SelfRepublican · Texas
Thomas TiffanyRepublican · Wisconsin
Randy WeberRepublican · Texas
Roger WilliamsRepublican · Texas