A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The FEES Act of 2026 proposes amendments to title 5 and title 28 of the United States Code regarding the payment of attorney's fees. It seeks to restrict which parties are eligible to receive fee awards in agency proceedings and civil actions by requiring a direct and personal monetary interest. The bill also implements caps on the amount of fees and the number of actions for which fees can be awarded unless specific conditions are met. Additionally, it prohibits settlement agreements or consent decrees involving federal agencies from including attorney's fees or litigation costs. Finally, the Act mandates an independent scientific assessment of these provisions' impacts on federally managed lands.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +5
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill reduces government spending by capping and restricting the payment of attorney's fees in agency proceedings and civil actions.
- Scored +3
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
By limiting predictable legal expenditures through fee caps, the bill aims to increase fiscal control over litigation costs.
- Scored +2
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill mandates a scientific assessment to monitor the impact of these legal changes on the sustainability of federal lands.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Narrowing eligibility for attorney's fees may make it harder for low-income individuals to challenge government actions.
- Scored -4
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill restricts the ability of parties to recover costs, which may impact the practical exercise of due process in agency actions.
- Scored -4
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
By limiting legal fee awards, the bill may discourage environmental advocacy and litigation used to enforce protections.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Limitation on Fee Awards: Under Section 2(a)(2) and Section 2(b)(3)(E), the bill limits fee awards to $200,000 per single action or more than three actions in a calendar year, unless it is a class action or involves the Social Security Administration or Department of Veterans Affairs. This could serve to limit what the text calls "egregiously expensive suits."
-
Restrictions on Settlements: Section 3(a) prevents settlement agreements or consent decrees that involve a regulation or guidance document from including the payment of attorneys' fees or litigation costs.
-
Scientific Assessment of Lands: Section 4(a) requires the Secretary of Interior to assemble an independent scientific panel to assess how the Act's provisions impact the ecological, social, and economic sustainability of federally managed lands, covering factors like forest health and biological diversity.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Narrowing Eligibility for Fees: Section 2(a)(1) and Section 2(b)(1)(A) amend the law so that only parties with a "direct and personal monetary interest" (such as personal injury, private property damage, or unpaid agency disbursement) can be considered prevailing parties for fee awards.
-
Mandatory Fee Reductions: Section 2(b)(2)(A) changes the law so that a court "shall" reduce fee awards or deny them based on pro bono hours and related expenses, or if a party acted in an "obdurate, dilatory, mendacious, or oppressive manner, or in bad faith."
-
Restrictions on Settlement Terms: Section 3(a) mandates that settlement agreements or consent decrees resulting in a regulation or guidance document may not include the payment of attorneys' fees or litigation costs.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill restricts the ability of parties to recover costs, which may impact the practical exercise of due process in agency actions. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Restricting settlement transparency and legal recourse may decrease government accountability to the public. Does this give the federal government more power? — Restricting private litigation against agencies could indirectly increase the unchecked power of federal agencies.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill reduces government spending by capping and restricting the payment of attorney's fees in agency proceedings and civil actions. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — By limiting predictable legal expenditures through fee caps, the bill aims to increase fiscal control over litigation costs. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Restricting attorney's fees may reduce the incentive for legal challenges against corporate or regulatory wrongdoing.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill mandates a scientific assessment to monitor the impact of these legal changes on the sustainability of federal lands. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — By limiting legal fee awards, the bill may discourage environmental advocacy and litigation used to enforce protections.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Reductions in legal fee risks may benefit businesses facing regulatory or civil litigation. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The bill explicitly carves out an exception for cases involving the Department of Veterans Affairs, maintaining certain fee protections for them. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Narrowing eligibility for attorney's fees may make it harder for low-income individuals to challenge government actions.
- 9/2/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/30/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Vince FongRepublican · California
Harriet HagemanRepublican · Wyoming