The House Committee on Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations convened a Dec. 10 hearing to examine potential abuse of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) by environmental organizations.
Chaired by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04), the hearing brought together a wide range of stakeholders to debate whether EAJA has strayed from its original intent and whether reforms are needed to curb excessive litigation against federal land management agencies.
Enacted in 1980 and permanently authorized in 1985, EAJA was intended to help individuals, veterans, Social Security recipients and small businesses recover attorneys’ fees when they successfully challenge unjustified federal actions. EAJA allows courts to award attorneys’ fees when a party prevails against the federal government and the government’s position was not substantially justified.
Gosar argued that loopholes now allow well-funded environmental nonprofits to sue federal agencies and recover taxpayer-funded legal fees repeatedly. Gosar pointed out that from fiscal years 2019 through 2024, the Interior Department and USDA paid approximately $24.8 million in EAJA awards, with about 76% going to a “handful” of environmental groups and their lawyers, who have been “reimbursed at rates as high as $500 per hour, paid for by American taxpayers.”
Rancher perspective
A central witness was Todd Wilkinson, owner of Wilkinson Livestock in South Dakota and former president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, who detailed how repeated litigation affects ranchers who rely on timely federal decisions to sustain their operations on public lands.
“EAJA was created with the best intentions, to allow Americans to challenge government actions without facing crushing legal costs,” Wilkinson said. “Unfortunately, like so many well-intentioned programs, it became vulnerable to abuse when oversight faded.”
Wilkinson told lawmakers that ranchers pay the price when agencies are tied up in court.
“When a federal agency can’t make a decision because it’s buried in litigation, that affects our ability to graze, plan, and operate,” he said. “Delay isn’t just an inconvenience in agriculture—delay can be devastating to a family operation.”
Sharp divide at hearing
Ranking Member Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR-3) defended EAJA as a critical access-to-justice statute, arguing that awards are only granted when plaintiffs prevail and when the government’s position is not “substantially justified.” Dexter warned that narrowing eligibility could undermine the ability of veterans, Tribes, rural communities and small organizations to hold the federal government accountable. Dexter noted that the vast majority of EAJA awards are tied to Social Security and veterans’ claims rather than environmental litigation.
According to the Administrative Conference of the U.S., in fiscal year 2024, 19 agencies paid out over $119 million, with the Interior Department paying over $2.2 million and the USDA paying over $1.5 million.
Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR-04) said exemptions for tax-exempt organizations have created incentives for serial litigation in the natural resources arena. Westerman pointed to repeated procedural lawsuits under statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act that can trigger fee awards even when agency decisions ultimately remain unchanged.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA-02) rejected that characterization, arguing that environmental litigation often arises from understaffed agencies missing statutory deadlines and that courts already apply multiple safeguards before awarding fees.
Several representatives focused on how EAJA awards affect agency budgets. Rep. Jeff Crank (R-CO-05) argued that when fees are paid from agency appropriations, money is diverted from core mission areas such as forest management, permitting and wildfire mitigation. Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN-08) and Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI-07) raised similar concerns, citing U.S. Forest Service budget documents showing millions of dollars redirected toward litigation-related costs in recent years.
Witnesses also echoed these concerns. Travis Joseph, president and CEO of the American Forest Resource Council, testified that litigation rarely improves environmental outcomes but frequently adds years of delay.
“Winning a lawsuit isn’t leading to better conservation,” Joseph said. “It’s leading to more process, more cost, and less work on the ground.”
He described projects designed to reduce wildfire risk or improve forest health that were stalled for years despite ultimately unchanged outcomes.
Regina Lennox, senior litigation counsel for Safari Club International, recommended reforms, including hard caps on attorneys’ fees, limits on repeat awards and narrowing the definition of a “prevailing party.” She told lawmakers that some attorneys receive EAJA reimbursements at rates exceeding $500 per hour, even when they are salaried, in-house counsel for nonprofit organizations.
Providing a counterpoint, Daniel Rohlf, a professor at Lewis and Clark Law School, testified that EAJA already contains multiple safeguards against abuse. Rohlf said that plaintiffs must establish standing, prevail on the merits and overcome the government’s “substantially justified” defense before any fee award is granted. Rohlf argued that environmental and administrative law are highly specialized fields and that higher fee rates reflect the expertise required to litigate complex federal cases.
Throughout the hearing, witnesses and lawmakers emphasized that restoring EAJA’s original intent will require continued congressional oversight and targeted reforms, including enforcing a true hourly fee cap, limiting repeat awards, narrowing the definition of a prevailing party, applying net-worth limits to large nonprofits and restricting eligibility to plaintiffs with direct, personal interests. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
1 Comment