PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 11, 2011
Removing Excess Litigation Involving Energy on Federal Lands Act or RELIEF Act - Requires all causes and claims that arise from a covered energy project to be filed within 60 days after a federal action or decision that constitutes the covered energy project concerned.
(Defines a covered energy project as a federal action or decision concerning the leasing of federal lands, including submerged lands, for the exploration, development, production, processing, or transmission of any source or form of energy, including actions and decisions regarding the selection or offering of federal lands for such leasing.)
Bars any cause or claim that is not filed within such time period. Requires all such proceedings to: (1) be resolved within 180 days after the cause or claim is filed, and (2) take precedence over other pending matters before the district court.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Confers exclusive appellate jurisdiction for such actions upon the U.S. Supreme Court.
Presumes the correctness of any administrative findings and conclusions relating to a challenged federal action under this Act unless the administrative record shows otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. Requires prospective relief to: (1) be narrowly drawn, (2) extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of a federal law requirement, and (3) be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation.
Requires a petitioner seeking judicial review of any action, or failure to act, under this Act who is not a prevailing party to pay to the prevailing parties (including intervening parties), other than the United States, fees and other expenses incurred in connection with such review, unless the Court finds that the petitioner was either substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.
People & committees
Rep. Broun, Paul C. [R-GA-10] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E459)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1032 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1032 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1032 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1032 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.