FEES Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Tiffany, Thomas P. [R-WI-7]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 30, 2026
Bottom line
This bill significantly curtails the ability of individuals and entities to recover attorney's fees from the federal government in certain legal proceedings, potentially shifting the financial burden of litigation.
What it actually does
This bill amends federal law to significantly restrict the payment of attorney's fees and litigation costs in certain federal agency adjudications and civil actions against the United States. It introduces monetary caps on awards, limits the number of adjudications for which a party can receive awards annually, and prohibits the payment of attorney's fees in settlement agreements or consent decrees that result in new regulations or guidance documents.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill curbs excessive litigation costs, reduces the financial burden on taxpayers, and prevents agencies from being coerced into policy changes through 'sue and settle' tactics where attorney's fees are paid. They believe it promotes fiscal responsibility and ensures that legal challenges are based on direct personal interest rather than broader policy objectives funded by the government.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill would severely limit access to justice for individuals and smaller entities challenging federal government actions, especially those with limited resources. They argue it would make it harder to hold agencies accountable for unlawful actions, disproportionately affecting environmental groups, small businesses, and individuals seeking redress, potentially leading to unchecked agency power.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are understandable, allowing a reader to grasp its main impacts within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)(1)
Restricting Eligibility for Attorney's Fees in Agency Adjudications
This provision amends the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) to specify that only a 'prevailing party who has a direct and personal monetary interest in the adjudication, including because of personal injury, private property damage, or unpaid agency disbursement' is eligible for attorney's fees in federal agency adversary adjudications. This narrows the scope of who can claim fees, focusing on direct financial stakes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this ensures EAJA funds are used for individuals with direct financial stakes, preventing public interest groups from using taxpayer money to pursue broader policy agendas.
Critics contend
Critics argue this provision would effectively bar many public interest organizations from challenging agency actions, as their cases often involve systemic issues rather than direct monetary harm to a single party, potentially reducing agency accountability.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances fiscal responsibility and limiting government payouts against ensuring access to justice for those challenging government actions, particularly non-monetary public interest cases.
Section 2(a)(2)
Capping Awards and Limiting Number of Claims in Agency Adjudications
This provision adds new limitations to EAJA awards in agency adjudications. It caps awards at $200,000 per single adjudication and limits a party to receiving awards for no more than 3 adjudications initiated in the same calendar year. Exceptions are made for class action lawsuits or cases involving the Social Security Administration or Department of Veterans Affairs.
Section 2(b)(1)
Restricting Eligibility for Attorney's Fees in Civil Actions
This provision amends the EAJA for civil actions against the United States (excluding tort cases) to require that a prevailing party must have a 'direct and personal monetary interest in the civil action, including because of personal injury, private property damage, or unpaid agency disbursement' to be eligible for attorney's fees. This mirrors the change for agency proceedings.
Section 2(b)(2)
Modifying Discretion for Reducing Awards Based on Government Conduct
This provision changes the language from 'may reduce' to 'shall reduce' the amount of attorney's fees awarded if the United States' position was 'substantially justified' or if special circumstances make an award unjust. It also removes the word 'unduly' from the 'unduly and protracted' phrase, and adds specific criteria for denying an award if the government 'acted in an obdurate, dilatory, mendacious, or oppressive manner, or in bad faith.' It also mandates reduction commensurate with pro bono hours.
Section 2(b)(3)
Capping Awards and Limiting Number of Claims in Civil Actions
This provision adds new limitations to EAJA awards in civil actions. It caps awards at $200,000 per single civil action and limits a party to receiving awards for no more than 3 civil actions initiated in the same calendar year. Exceptions are made for class action lawsuits or cases involving the Social Security Administration or Department of Veterans Affairs. This mirrors the change for agency proceedings.
Section 3(a)
Banning Attorney's Fees in 'Sue and Settle' Agreements
This provision prohibits settlement agreements or consent decrees, to which a Federal agency is a party, from including the payment of attorney's fees or litigation costs if the agreement results in a new regulation or guidance document. This aims to prevent 'sue and settle' practices where agencies agree to new rules in exchange for paying plaintiffs' legal fees.
Section 4
Post-Enactment Assessment of Environmental and Economic Impacts
This section mandates that, within 5 years of the Act's enactment, the Secretary of Interior must convene an independent scientific panel. This panel will assess the impacts of the Act's provisions on the ecological, social, and economic sustainability of federally managed lands, including factors like forest health, wildfire susceptibility, biodiversity, watershed quality, and economic productivity. The panel will report its conclusions to Congress.
Mandates that the independent scientific panel assessing the Act's impacts must include specific members: at least two hunters or anglers, at least one from the forest products industry, at least one from a rural water utility, and at least one wildlife biologist.
Section 4(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for specifying stakeholder representation on advisory bodies, ensuring diverse perspectives are included.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures a balanced panel with practical expertise and diverse stakeholder perspectives relevant to federally managed lands, preventing a purely academic or single-interest viewpoint.
Case against: Critics might argue that specifying industry and user group representation could lead to a panel biased towards economic exploitation or specific recreational uses over broader ecological conservation, potentially influencing the assessment's findings.
Estimated impact: Ensures specific stakeholder voices are guaranteed a seat at the table for a future assessment of the bill's impacts on federally managed lands.