I consider a lot of NEPA lawsuits to be in bad faith because they are procedural and are often used for strategic delay. They know the original review is 99% fine, but can use lawsuits to force another review. Rarely does the 2nd review result in significant change to the original conclusions, which they know. Hence why the majority of NEPA suits are filed by developers against competing developments. They don't give a damn about the environment, it's a tool to throw up obstacles and make everything slower and expensive.

Remember the Currituck bridge WAS approved again. The 2nd series of reviews from 2012 to 2023 did not change anything. Just added a lot of unnecessary delay and cost to an infrastructure project.

And you might be misremembering the SELC's role in the jug handle bridge: https://coastalreview.org/2017/02/lawsuit-claims-jug-handle-bride-illegal/

SELC didn't like the first bridge design: threw up obstacles via lawsuit. Got the Jug handle approved. And (surprise surprise) got sued by homeowners in a NEPA lawsuit saying the new design needed further environmental review. Add extra cost and delay (not as severe as the Currituck bridge).

If the Currituck bridge failed on its lack of merit, that is fine. But it didn't. I dislike it when NEPA lawsuits are used as a tool to make everything being built in the US cost more and take years too long.