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.
- Settlement agreements with agencies can no longer include attorney's fees, removing a key incentive for agencies to settle and potentially forcing more cases to trial at public expense.
- The forest-industry and hunter-dominated panel in Section 4 may bias the assessment of the bill's ecological impact toward extractive-use interests, undermining the independence of the review.
- Mapped insurance and financial stocks (AIG, PRU, FBK, PFG, FMAO) may benefit if reduced litigation risk lowers regulatory compliance costs and litigation reserves.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Ordinary citizens and nonprofits challenging unlawful agency action face sharply reduced financial incentives to sue, because winning plaintiffs can recover far less in attorney's fees. This makes it harder for individuals to afford legal representation against the government, tilting the playing field toward agencies and away from citizens seeking to enforce their rights or challenge harmful regulations.
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)
Named in the bill
U.S. Department of Interior, Social Security Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), House Committee on Natural Resources, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, AIG, Prudential Financial (PRU), Fiserv (FBK), Principal Financial Group (PFG), Federated Hermes (FMAO)
Where it stands
2 cosponsors: 2 Republicans.
- Jun 30, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Jun 30, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
1 lobbying clients named this bill on 1 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $150,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 15 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.
Thomas Tiffany, the sponsor, reported $63,525 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- National Asphalt Pavement Association — $150,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 23, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (5,842 characters) on Aug 12, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 23, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Bill caps attorney's fees for citizens suing federal agencies, tilting litigation toward government.” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr9536 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.