FEATURED
A newly introduced bill backed by free-speech and civil-rights organizations aims to make it easier for people who successfully challenge unconstitutional government actions, including campus speech restrictions, to avoid paying their own legal bills.
The Restoring Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Act of 2026, introduced Sept. 10 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, would expand when students, faculty members and other civil rights plaintiffs can recover attorney’s fees after successfully challenging public universities’ speech policies.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Alliance Defending Freedom are among the organizations supporting the proposal.
Plaintiffs should not face unrecoverable legal bills when litigation causes the government to stop violating constitutional rights, Matt Sharp, Alliance Defending Freedom’s vice president of policy, told The College Fix. The legislation would place “the balance back where it belongs—on the side of constitutional accountability, equal access to justice, and the ability of ordinary Americans to stand up to unlawful government action,” he said.
Although campus speech disputes are one potential application, the bill would apply more broadly to certain civil-rights cases against government defendants when a policy change or court order provides relief before a final judgment
The bill was introduced by Wisconsin Rep. Glenn Grothman and seeks to treat plaintiffs as “prevailing” when they obtain qualifying preliminary court orders or when a government defendant voluntarily changes a policy in a way that substantially grants the relief sought.
“When a government institution changes an unconstitutional speech policy after litigation begins, the case may end without a final judgment,” Sydney Maingot, communications director for Grothman’s office, told The College Fix in an email. “H.R. 10335 would ensure that meaningful relief is not disregarded simply because the government changed course.”
The proposal addresses a practical issue in civil rights litigation: a plaintiff may obtain an early injunction allowing a campus event or speaker to proceed, or persuade a university to withdraw a disputed policy, but receive no final ruling before the case becomes moot.
Under the bill, a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order could support an attorney-fee award if it materially changes the parties’ legal relationship and is not reversed.
The bill also includes government policy changes that render a case moot or substantially grant the plaintiff’s requested relief.
The Supreme Court narrowed the availability of fees in such cases in its 2025 decision Lackey v. Stinnie. The court held that plaintiffs who received only a preliminary injunction before their case became moot were not “prevailing parties” eligible for fees under the existing statute.
Greg Gonzalez, legislative counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which supports the bill, said it would “incentivize attorneys to take meritorious cases” because students, student organizations, faculty members, and speakers may be unable to afford substantial legal costs in advance.
“Monetary awards may be limited or nonexistent in many free speech cases,” Gonzalez told The College Fix by email. “While organizations like FIRE can litigate such cases without the prospect of obtaining fees, many First Amendment attorneys cannot afford to do so.”
Gonzalez pointed to Austin v. University of Florida Board of Trustees as an example.
University of Florida professors sued after the university denied their requests to serve as expert witnesses in litigation challenging a state election law. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in 2022, finding a First Amendment violation, and the university later adopted a revised policy.
The trial court awarded more than $372,000 in attorney’s fees, but the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated that award in April 2025 after the Supreme Court decided Lackey, according to WFTV.
FIRE endorsed the legislation this month, arguing that First Amendment cases are often time sensitive because the underlying event may occur before a court can reach a final ruling. In its public statement, FIRE cited disputes involving protests, parades and speaking events as examples.
Grothman’s office said the measure would not create new constitutional rights, lower the legal standard for bringing a civil-rights claim or require courts to award attorney’s fees. Maingot said judges would still conduct a fact-specific review before granting fees when there is no final judgment on the merits.
MORE: Stanford violated its AI policy by changing Hispanic man into black woman in promo banner
