The Fifth Circuit's en banc decision in the Louisiana Ten Commandments case grabbed headlines last week, but the most significant part of the ruling wasn't about religion — it was about timing. The court didn't reach whether HB 71's classroom display requirement is constitutional. Instead, the court's 12-6 decision in Roake v. Brumley held that the challenge was “premature.” Because the law leaves implementation details to local school boards, i.e., how displays are framed, what materials accompany them, and where they're placed, the majority found no concrete factual record to evaluate. “It is not judging,” the court wrote. “It is guessing.” 

That reasoning has implications well beyond classroom walls. Many environmental regulations follow the same structural pattern: a statute sets broad requirements, but compliance specifics depend on how agencies and regulated entities apply them on the ground. EPA emissions standards with state implementation flexibility. Louisiana's Act 312 remediation framework, where cleanup scope turns on site-specific conditions. 

Under this strict ripeness approach, pre-enforcement challenges to regulations face a higher bar. This potentially forces challengers to wait until enforcement is already underway and significant compliance costs have been incurred. 

The dissent saw the risk. Judge Dennis warned that requiring as-applied challenges rather than facial ones forces affected parties into “constitutional whack-a-mole” district-by-district, site-by-site litigation instead of resolving the fundamental legal question once. 

This case is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court. For those of us in energy and environmental law, the procedural question of when you can challenge a regulation is now just as consequential as whether you can win.

the procedural question of when you can challenge a regulation is now just as consequential as whether you can win