Bills
| 3.23.22

Do the Feds Need to Publish How Much they Spend on Legal Fees? (H.R. 3279)

Do you support or oppose this bill?

What is H.R. 3279?

(Updated July 13, 2017)

This bill would require the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) to annually prepare a report detailing the amount of fees and other expenses awarded by federal courts to nonfederal entities when they prevail in cases against the U.S.

The annual report is a reinstatement of a requirement previously included in the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), when it was passed in 1980. According to the office of Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY): 
"Congress passed the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) as a means to help individuals, retirees, veterans, and small businesses recover attorney’s fees and costs associated with suing the federal government. Congress intended EAJA to remove a barrier to justice for those with limited access to the resources it takes to sue or defend against the federal government."

Under this legislation, the ACUS would also be required to create a publicly-available searchable online database with information on the cases where fees and expenses were awarded by courts or federal agencies. The ACUS is an independent agency that assists other agencies of the federal government in improving regulatory and other administrative procedures.

Argument in favor

People in the U.S. have the right to know how much money is being spent on legal cases, and the government has a duty to be transparent about it.

Argument opposed

This bill attempts to unfairly restrict unwanted legal challenges to the government, and tries to suppress disfavored plaintiffs.

Impact

People suing the U.S., federal government agencies, the Administrative Conference of the United States, and the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Cost of H.R. 3279

The CBO estimates that this bill would cost $1 million during fiscal year 2016 and $500,000 annually in subsequent years.

Additional Info

Of Note: Much of the to-do on this issue centers around the concerns expressed by Congressional members over environmental groups abusing provisions of the EAJA. There have been claims that while the original intent of the EAJA was to help out the "small fry" when taking the government to court, it has actually helped big environmental groups to recoup some of the expensive litigation fees they lost when filing suits on environmental issues.

In 2011, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent, nonpartisan agency, published a report that analyzed cases brought against the Environmental Protection Agency. The GAO found that the majority of suits were brought by trade associations or private companies, and that lawyer fees were awarded in under ten percent of cases. 


Media:

(Photo Credit: Flickr user srqpix)