House Natural Resources subcommittee debates whether environmental groups are abusing EJA; witnesses give clashing accounts

Chair Gosar opened the Dec. 9 subcommittee hearing saying the panel would "examine the Equal Access to Justice Act or EJA" and the ways he said environmental nonprofits have used it to recover attorney fees from federal agencies. He told members the committee’s review would focus on alleged "loopholes and exemptions" that, he said, incentivize what he called "lawfare" and delay on‑the‑ground projects.

The hearing brought sharply divided testimony. Republican members and witnesses from industry groups argued that repeat litigation by well‑funded NGOs has become a de‑facto business model that drains agency budgets and stalls projects. Regina Lennox, senior litigation counsel for Safari Club International, told the panel that some 501(c)(3) organizations can have "net worths in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars" yet recover EJA attorney fees; she urged Congress to apply net‑worth limits to nonprofits, cap awards per organization, remove "fees on fees" provisions, rescind exceptions to the $125/hour statutory cap and require direct reporting of awards to improve transparency.

Todd Wilkinson, a South Dakota rancher, said repeat litigation often forces agencies to suspend work and restudy projects, harming ranchers’ livelihoods. "When they're tangled up in court over procedural issues, they're effectively forced off the very ground that they need in order to exist," Wilkinson said. He and other witnesses urged lawmakers to tighten reporting, impose financial limits on tax‑exempt organizations, and refine the legal concept of who is a "prevailing party."

By contrast, Ranking Member Dexter framed the statute as a tool that "promotes fairness in the court system" and stressed that EJA awards are available only to prevailing parties. "EJA helps ensure that regardless of income or power, the American people can hold the federal government accountable," she said, warning that changes that make EJA harder to access would lock low‑income claimants out of court. Professor Rolfe of Lewis & Clark Law School told the committee that procedural deadlines and agency underfunding often generate legitimate claims and emphasized existing legal safeguards: plaintiffs must prevail in court and the government’s position must not be "substantially justified" before a fee award is available.

Witnesses gave concrete examples that illustrated the competing narratives. Travis Joseph, president and CEO of the American Forest Resource Council, described a Forest Service safety project at Walton Lake (Ochoco National Forest) proposed in 2015 that, he said, was stalled by litigation and later produced an award he estimated at about $200,000 to the plaintiff; he said the dispute delayed work intended to reduce risk from diseased trees. Several witnesses and members cited a committee majority figure that, they said, shows roughly $24.8 million in awards paid by several agencies between fiscal years 2019–2024 with about three‑quarters of that amount reported as going to environmental nonprofits; witnesses and Democrats also noted that reporting and accounting can be incomplete and that some awards originate from different funding mechanisms (agency budgets versus the Judgment Fund).

Members repeatedly questioned how courts calculate attorney rates and the meaning of the "special factor" exception that permits awards above the statutory $125/hour cap. Majority members asked whether fee awards are used for fundraising; witnesses said awards and publicized litigation outcomes can support organizational fundraising. Democrats and legal scholars countered that courts and intervenors exercise oversight of settlements, that judges must approve fee awards, and that meaningful limits risk denying access to justice for vulnerable claimants such as veterans and Social Security recipients.

Procedurally, members entered multiple documents into the hearing record by unanimous consent, asked witnesses to answer follow‑up questions in writing, and the chair held the record open for ten business days and directed members to submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by Dec. 15. The hearing concluded without any vote on legislation; members signaled competing next steps, including bills and oversight proposals to modernize reporting and proposals from some Republicans to restrict nonprofit eligibility for awards.

What happens next: the committee will collect written follow‑up responses from witnesses and members, and several members said they plan to press legislative changes — proposals discussed at the hearing included tightened reporting requirements, applying net‑worth caps to 501(c)(3) organizations, capping award rates, eliminating fees‑on‑fees, and restricting awards for procedural relief. Ranking Democrats said they would oppose reforms that reduce access for traditional beneficiaries of EJA, including low‑income individuals, veterans and Social Security claimants.