(SnoWest ED—Basically, what the following press release is saying—and
something we’ve known for years now—is that many environmental groups are suing
various agencies and then getting reimbursed for those legal costs. That means,
an environmental group can just sue while incurring little cost. Ever wondered
why there are so many environmental lawsuits? Now you know.)
Studies released independently by Notre Dame Law School and
the Government Accountability Office show that environmental groups pad their
claims for reimbursed legal fees using a social program entitled the Equal
Access to Justice Act and the U.S. is not keeping track of expenditures.
A Notre Dame law review article shows that a 1980 law
intended for seniors, veterans, and small businesses is utilized by
environmental groups to get pay-backs for their lawsuits as well. A GAO study
shows that no one really knows how much money has been spent, but the amounts
are at least several million dollars a year.
“This study made me a strong supporter of the Equal Access
to Justice Act for its intended beneficiaries,” Lowell E. Baier, the author of
the law review article and President Emeritus of the Boone and Crockett Club,
said. “This law is for seniors, veterans and small businesses that have trouble
getting their legal fees reimbursed, yet many environmental lawsuits are reimbursed
without ever showing a violation of environmental law. Environmental law is
clear about which lawsuits should be repaid under environmental statutes; we
should stick to that clear direction and follow the intent of Congress.”
“Litigation has become a routine step in environmental
policy because much of it is about lobbying against decisions and forcing do-overs,”
Jennifer Ellis, president of the Western
said. “It’s not that so many environmental policies are wrong, it’s that people
disagree over them. Businesses protect themselves—especially against those who admit
they want to destroy us—and activists try to get their way instead. Whoever
files that kind of lawsuit should pay their own way.”
Western Legacy Alliance and Boone and Crockett lead a
coalition of more than 100 groups that together both support H.R. 1996, the
Government Litigation Savings Act, which will reform the 1980 Equal Access to
The bill improves legal fee reimbursements to seniors,
veterans and small businesses, enforces attorney fee reimbursement under
environmental law and requires full accounting of payments authorized by the
Equal Access to Justice Act.
The GAO report confirms the obvious need to resume
accounting, which stopped in 1995.
- GAO asked 75 bureaus and agencies at USDA and the Department
of Interior for records on payments, but only 10 of these 75 could provide data
on cases and attorney fee reimbursements. Even the records provided were
incomplete and unreliable, based on manual calculations from older files and
the memory of career employees. Moreover, some records may overlap, so GAO is
not even certain of their totals.
- Even these sparse records show that millions of dollars are
going out the door. GAO identified $4.4 million per year of EAJA payments to
environmental groups during the period of 2000-2010 from suits against the 10
units of USDA and DOI that had any records at all.
- GAO’s minimum numbers do not add up to totals available from
public court records and tax returns over the same period. Public federal court
records from just 13 federal courts revealed $5.2 million in legal fees per
year, compared to GAO’s estimate of $4.4 million, as tabulated by legal staff
for the Western Legacy Alliance. A broader analysis including additional
federal court records and public tax returns from just 20 environmental organizations
showed $9.1 million reimbursed during FY2010 alone, as demonstrated by attorneys
for the Boone and Crockett Club.
“Clearly, the more you look the more money you find,” said
Ellis said, “There are two problems here: getting the money
to the right people for the right reasons and keeping track of the money.”
The House-Senate request for this GAO report is the 10th
Congressional directive or proposal introduced since 2010 on EAJA payments.
Some of these measures address only accounting for funds HR 1996 as reported
from the House Judiciary Committee is now the latest most comprehensive
proposal on both use of and accounting for EAJA payments.