Bill caps attorney's fees for citizens suing federal agencies, tilting litigation toward government.
H.R. 9536 — FEES Act of 2026 · Filed by Thomas Tiffany (R-WI) · 2 cosponsors · Introduced Jun 30, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill caps attorney's fees that individuals and organizations can recover when they win against federal agencies or the U.S. government in court or administrative proceedings. It limits awards to $200,000 per case and no more than 3 cases per year (with narrow exceptions for class actions and veterans/Social Security cases), and it bars attorneys' fees entirely in settlement agreements with agencies. The bill also requires the Interior Department to assemble a panel—including forest industry representatives and hunters—to assess the bill's impact on federal lands over five years.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is to reduce the financial incentive for private parties to sue federal agencies by capping attorney's fees recovery. While framed as controlling 'egregiously expensive suits,' the effect is to make it harder for citizens to afford counsel when challenging agency action, thereby reducing litigation pressure on regulated industries and agencies.
- Section 4 (Independent Review and Assessment) mandates a 5-year Interior Department panel to assess impacts on federal lands, with industry and hunter representation. Substantively unrelated to attorney's fees caps; appears to be a forest/rangeland policy rider.
What the text implies
- Citizens and nonprofits challenging agency overreach face a $200,000 cap per case, making it uneconomical to pursue cases with high litigation costs but modest individual damages—shifting power toward agencies and regulated industries.
- The $200,000 annual cap (3 cases max) may deter repeat litigants (civil rights organizations, environmental groups) from mounting sustained legal challenges to agency policy.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
federal agencies (reduced litigation costs and settlement exposure); regulated industries (lower litigation risk and compliance pressure); insurance companies (reduced claims from regulatory litigation)