Congress has a chance to help Americans defend their rights. It should take it.

Last week, Rep. Glenn Grothman introduced H.R. 10335, the Restoring Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Act of 2026. The bill would make it easier for Americans who successfully vindicate their civil rights in court to recover the cost of doing so. The bill is scheduled for a committee vote today, and FIRE is urging lawmakers to support it.

Lawsuits are one of the primary ways the Bill of Rights is enforced. If a state or local government employee violates someone’s constitutional rights, including their rights under the First Amendment, the victim can sue to stop the violation and potentially win damages.

But litigation is expensive. In America, each side generally pays its own attorney’s fees, regardless of who wins. This creates a problem: people who cannot afford substantial legal fees are less able to find attorneys to represent them. This is especially true in civil rights cases, where the purpose of the lawsuit is often to stop unlawful actions by the government rather than to win large monetary judgments. 

To fix this, Congress passed the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act in 1976, allowing plaintiffs to get attorney’s fees from the defendant when they are the “prevailing party” in many civil rights cases. But since the law was passed, the Supreme Court has narrowed who qualifies as a “prevailing party.” This has created circumstances in which plaintiffs have sued and successfully obtained relief, yet were still on the hook for their legal fees. 

Most recently, in the 2025 case Lackey v. Stinnie, the Supreme Court considered a challenge brought by Virginia drivers who argued that a state law suspending driver’s licenses for failure to pay certain court fines violated the Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs secured a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law. Before a final ruling, Virginia repealed the law and reinstated the suspended licenses. This made the case moot because the challenged policy was no longer the books. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs were not “prevailing parties” entitled to attorney’s fees because they had technically won only the preliminary injunction before the state mooted the case. Even though their case ultimately got the unconstitutional policy reversed, they still were not “prevailing parties.” 

These problems present themselves particularly in First Amendment cases for two reasons. 

First, speech disputes can be unusually time-sensitive. Think of a permit for a protest in a park or permission to march in a parade. A court may issue preliminary relief allowing the event to go forward. Once the protest or parade takes place, there may be nothing left for a court to decide. This means a litigant can be successful without ever receiving a final judgment. Under current law, the plaintiff would be unlikely to recover attorney’s fees.

Second, First Amendment lawsuits often do not lead to large monetary awards, even when successful. Victory might mean simply getting the government to stop censoring someone. But if attorneys cannot reasonably expect to recover fees, people whose rights have been violated may have a hard time finding counsel willing to take their case.

The Restoring Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Act addresses these problems and restores Congress’s original intent in passing the 1976 law. The bill would allow courts to award fees when plaintiffs obtain a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order which is not later overturned or when a plaintiffs lawsuit prompts the government to voluntarily change the challenged law or policy. 

Today, the House Judiciary Committee is considering the bill and FIRE is urging support. We are joined by a broad coalition including the Alliance Defending Freedom, the ACLU, Liberty Counsel, Protect Democracy, the Protect the 1st Foundation, and the Institute for Free Speech. 

FIRE thanks Congressman Grothman for sponsoring the bill. Americans should not be left bearing substantial legal costs after successfully going to court to protect their constitutional rights.