Republican Bill Slams Courthouse Door in the Face of the Poor

For Immediate Release

Date: Thursday, November 17, 2011

Contact: Matthew Morgan – 202-226-5543

Republican Bill Slams Courthouse Door in the Face of the Poor   

(WASHINGTON) –  Today at a markup held by the House Judiciary Committee, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) opposed the passage of  H.R. 1996, the “Government Litigation Savings Act.”  The bill prohibits groups and individuals seeking to protect important rights and interests threatened by unreasonable government action from recovering attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).  The EAJA allows a court to award attorney’s fees when a citizen, non-profit organization, or small business wins a case against the federal government in which the government’s actions are proved unjustifiable.  The Alliance for Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, National Consumer Law Center, Sierra Club, and over one hundred other consumer, environmental, civil rights, and civil liberties organizations oppose H.R. 1996 because the bill undermines the EAJA, making it more difficult for low income people and other parties that cannot obtain free legal counsel from securing quality legal representation in a wide range of cases.

“Contrary to the title of the bill, H.R. 1996 is a thinly disguised effort to prohibit litigation against the Government by the needy and public interest groups,” said Conyers.  “  Under current law, the Equal Access to Justice Act enables the needy to recover attorneys fees, which makes it easier for them to obtain legal representation.  Without the ability to recover fees, it is doubtful that many low income people, including seniors and veterans, will be able to secure legal representation.

“In addition, H.R.1996 also unnecessarily restrict eligibility for awards under the Equal Access to Justice Act.  The EAJA already limits who is eligible for awards.  For example, businesses with a net worth of $7 million or more are ineligible while individuals with a net worth of $2 million or more are also ineligible.  However, H.R. 1996 contains new ill-conceived eligibility standards and prohibits some non-profit organizations from recovering awards under the Act.

“Specifically, H.R. 1996 requires the prevailing party to have a direct and personal interest in the action.  Thus, public interest groups and others could be deterred from pursuing litigation that serves the public good because those actions may not provide a direct relief to these groups.  For example, we could see fewer cases brought on behalf of individuals with physical disabilities as well as fewer suits to enforce federal laws that protect our health.

“Furthermore, I am concerned that this bill is purely aimed at restraining environmental groups and is an attack on those groups who have been awarded fees under the Act.  Most, if not all, environmental groups are non-profit organizations.  Many file lawsuits for injunctive relief to enforce laws and protect the public health.  As a result of this bill, however, many of these organizations will be deterred from bringing such actions if they cannot recover full attorney’s fees.

“Finally, this bill eliminates the possibility of increased fees, which are particularly appropriate for complex and highly specialized adjudications involving environmental law.   By eliminating the possibility of increased fees for specialization, this bill creates yet another hurdle that will make it more difficult to find competent legal representation to enforce complex environmental laws.”

Letter outlining public interest group opposition:

Letter of Opposition to the “Government Litigation Savings Act” (H.R. 1996) November 16, 2011
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Defends Senior Citizens, Veterans, and Environmentalists’ Access to Courts

For Immediate Release

Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 

Contact: Matthew Morgan – 202-226-5543

             

Conyers Defends Senior Citizens, Veterans, and Environmentalists’ Access to Courts

Conyers opposes H.R. 1996, the Government Litigation Savings Act which would limit senior citizens, veterans, and environmentalists’ access to the Courts

(WASHINGTON) – Today, the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing on H.R. 1996, the “Government Litigation Savings Act”. The bill would prevent our veterans and elderly from recovering their legal fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which for 30 years has helped to ensure that senior citizens, veterans, environmental groups, and other non-profit organizations can vindicate their rights against unreasonable governmental action.  House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) released the following statement in response to the hearing:

“H.R. 1996 is yet another flawed measure masquerading as reform that this Committee is considering this Congress”, Conyers said.  “I have three principal concerns with this bill:

               

“First, the legislation may prevent those who are the most needy in our society – namely, senior citizens, veterans, and disabled individuals – from securing legal representation.  Many attorneys take cases pro bono if they know their clients may be able to recover attorneys fees should they prevail.  This explains the critical role that the Equal Access to Justice Act plays with respect to the needy.  It enables them to recover attorneys fees thereby making it easier for them to obtain legal representation.

“For example, more than 2,500 disabled veterans used the Act during fiscal year 2010 to recover their attorneys fees in cases where they successfully appealed a Veterans Administration decision denying them disability benefits.  Without the ability to recover fees, it is doubtful that many of these veterans would have secured legal representation.  

“My second concern is this bill unnecessarily restricts eligibility for awards under the Equal Access to Justice Act.  The Act already limits who is eligible for awards.  For example, businesses with a net worth of $7 million or more are not eligible while individuals with a net worth of $2 million or more are also ineligible.  But H.R. 1996 creates new ill-conceived eligibility standards and prohibits some non-profit organizations from recovering awards under the Act.

“And lastly, I am concerned this bill is purely aimed at restraining environmental groups.  Most, if not all, environmental groups are non-profit organizations.  Many commence lawsuits for injunctive relief to enforce laws and protect the public health.  As a result of this bill, however, many of these organizations,  because they are non-profits, will be deterred from bringing such actions if they cannot recover attorneys fees.  This bill creates yet another hurdle that will make it more difficult to find competent legal representation to enforce complex environmental laws, which protect the water we drink and the lands we enjoy. 

“Contrary to the title of the bill, H.R. 1996 is a thinly disguised effort to prohibit litigation against the Government by environmentalists, veterans, public interest groups, and senior citizens.”

           

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Government Savings Litigation Act Judiciary Hearing, October 11, 2011

For the first time ever, instead of submitting formal testimony, you will have the opportunity of commenting, in your real voice, on legislative activities as it happens and actually get an immediate response.

The Government Savings Litigation Act has been assigned to hearing in the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, October 11, 2011 at 3:30p.m. EST.

Here is a summary of the Bill"

Government Litigation Savings Act - Revises provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and the federal judicial code relating to the fees and other expenses of parties in agency proceedings and court cases against the federal government to: (1) restrict awards of fees and other expenses under such Act to prevailing parties with a direct and personal monetary interest in an adjudication, including because of personal injury, property damage, or an unpaid agency disbursement; (2) require the reduction or denial of awards commensurate with pro bono hours and related fees and expenses to parties who have acted in an obdurate, dilatory, mendacious, or oppressive manner or in bad faith; (3) limit awards to not more than $200,000 in any single adversary adjudication or for more than three adversary adjudications in the same calendar year (unless the adjudicating officer or judge determines that a higher award is required to avoid severe and unjust harm to the prevailing party); and (4) expand the reporting requirements of the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States with respect to fees and other expenses awarded to prevailing parties during the preceding fiscal year. Requires the Comptroller General to audit the implementation of EAJA for the years 1995 through the end of the calendar year in which this Act is enacted.
Government Litigation Savings Act
Leave a comment and open discussion.  Let's hear what you have to say.