<\/p>\n
The US government is on the hook for potentially millions of dollars in legal bills demanded by successful challengers to some of the Trump administration\u2019s most controversial executive actions and policies.<\/p>\n
Attorneys have sought fees exceeding $100 000 in at least 10 cases over the past year, totalling more than $2.5 million, according to a Bloomberg News analysis of court records.<\/p>\n
In addition, lawyers who sued over the Elon Musk-linked government efficiency project\u2019s more than $100 million in humanities funding cuts argue they\u2019re entitled to a share of grants they recover for clients.<\/p>\n
Federal agencies can be required to pay attorneys\u2019 fees when they lose in court under a 1980 law meant to ensure individuals, small businesses and non-profits aren\u2019t priced out of suing the government.<\/p>\n
The unprecedented deluge of hundreds of lawsuits challenging the Trump administration\u2019s novel and boundary-pushing uses of executive power has increased the amount of taxpayer money at stake.<\/p>\n
Read:
US asks to keep collecting Trump\u2019s tariffs after court loss
Trump\u2019s latest 10% tariffs found unlawful by US trade court<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s inherently American to be able to sue your government,\u201d said Steven Brown, a Houston-based lawyer seeking more than $180 000 in fees in several lawsuits contesting the administration\u2019s efforts to cancel foreign students\u2019 legal status.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s important that when the government can\u2019t justify itself, courts can award costs.\u201d<\/p>\n
Brown and his co-counsel recently notified judges that they reached tentative fee agreements with the government, court records show, but he declined to comment on the amounts because the deals aren\u2019t final.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Attorney fees offer a way for courts to make winning parties whole \u2013 and can also be used by a court to penalise misconduct. If the two sides can\u2019t reach an agreement, the judge in a case decides whether and how much the losing party must pay.<\/p>\n
A federal judge in Florida recently ruled that President Donald Trump should pay his opponents\u2019 fees as a sanction for bringing a \u201cbad faith\u201d $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.<\/p>\n
The judge slammed the Justice Department\u2019s conduct but didn\u2019t impose a financial penalty on the government. Lawyers for the challengers filed papers this week asking for approximately $43 500.<\/p>\n
Read: WSJ says Trump libel suit should be dismissed \u2018once and for all\u2019<\/p>\n
ADVERTISEMENT<\/p>\n
CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n
Demands for the US government to pay opponents\u2019 legal bills have mounted as more lawsuits filed since the beginning of Trump\u2019s second term reach a final judgement. Attorney fees typically aren\u2019t available until a case is over, including appeals.<\/p>\n
Hourly rates<\/p>\n
The Justice Department is asking courts to knock out several high-dollar requests, or at least lower the amount. In lawsuits over how much money US agencies reimburse private institutions for research costs, the department is arguing that the non-profit association that sued isn\u2019t eligible to pursue fees totalling more than $1.5 million \u2013 and that, at a minimum, the lawyers\u2019 hourly rates are too high.<\/p>\n
Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels said in a statement that \u201cthe department has an obligation to protect taxpayer dollars, and that includes contesting fee requests when litigants seek more than the law allows\u201d.<\/p>\n
This month, new six-figure fee requests were filed in fights over the administration\u2019s moves to restrict food benefits for low-income households and to get rid of bike lanes in down town Washington.<\/p>\n
The Justice Department has settled fee requests in some challenges to the administration\u2019s policies, including at least three involving requests for more than $100 000, according to Bloomberg\u2019s analysis of court filings.<\/p>\n
Lawyers in those cases \u2013 which included fights over funding for education research and teen pregnancy prevention programmes \u2013 declined to disclose the amounts.<\/p>\n
Cycling activists hold a rally against the federal government\u2019s plan to remove the 15th Street bike lanes along the National Mall in March.<\/p>\n
\u2018Prevailing parties\u2019<\/p>\n
The Equal Access to Justice Act of 1980 entitles \u201cprevailing parties\u201d to recoup legal expenses if the government\u2019s position wasn\u2019t \u201csubstantially justified\u201d.<\/p>\n
The law sets eligibility caps based on net worth and size for individuals, businesses, local government agencies and other for-profit entities. Non-profits are covered if they have fewer than 500 employees.<\/p>\n
Most attorney fee payouts since 2020 under the law were below $100 000, according to a government database. Of the 88 payments that the US made in 2025 \u2013 totalling $15 million \u2013 less than a quarter were for six figures, according to Bloomberg\u2019s analysis, which excluded thousands of annual fee payouts in Social Security and veterans benefits cases.<\/p>\n
Read: Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariffs, Wall Street reacts<\/p>\n
In a handful of other cases over the past year, Trump administration challengers requested smaller sums or didn\u2019t specify the amounts they were seeking in court filings before reaching settlements.<\/p>\n
That analysis doesn\u2019t include fee requests from lawyers who successfully sued to get their clients out of immigration custody amid the administration\u2019s deportation push.<\/p>\n
ADVERTISEMENT:<\/p>\n
CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n
These requests tend to be smaller \u2013 in the hundreds or single-digit thousands of dollars, court records show \u2013 but add up given the thousands of lawsuits filed so far.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Federal courts have split on whether the Equal Access to Justice Act applies in immigration cases. The Justice Department argues that it does not. The conservative-majority Supreme Court, which has largely sided with the Trump administration, is set to rule on the issue in the new term that begins in October.<\/p>\n
High-dollar demands\u00a0<\/p>\n
The Justice Department is fighting the higher attorney fee requests in lawsuits over research reimbursement caps adopted by the Departments of Defence, Energy and Health & Human Services and the National Science Foundation.<\/p>\n
Taken together, the non-profit Association of American Universities is seeking more than $1.5 million for its attorneys.<\/p>\n
Government lawyers argue the association isn\u2019t eligible for fees because the agencies \u201chad a reasonable basis in law\u201d.<\/p>\n
The Justice Department also contends the fee requests should be denied because the association\u2019s members \u2013 which include Harvard, Yale and dozens more large, well-endowed universities \u2013 paid extra dues to help fund the litigation.<\/p>\n
The association counters that ultimately it is responsible for the costs and that legal precedents don\u2019t rule out recovering money just because the organisation gets member support.<\/p>\n
The government also argues that the lawyers are asking for too much money.<\/p>\n
The association\u2019s attorneys have claimed hourly rates as high as $500, citing the expertise required to litigate the case and the tight schedule.<\/p>\n
The lawyers include Paul Clement, a prominent conservative litigator who served as a senior official under former President George W. Bush and has emerged as a go-to attorney for fights against the Trump administration.<\/p>\n
Read: WSJ says Trump libel suit should be dismissed \u2018once and for all\u2019<\/p>\n
There are other paths for Trump administration opponents to recoup legal expenses besides fees under the equal access law, which are usually paid by the agency that was sued.<\/p>\n
ADVERTISEMENT:<\/p>\n
CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n
Individuals who sue the government for injuries or property damage can recover attorney fees if they win, and that money comes out of a central pool of federal money known as the Judgement Fund.<\/p>\n
In a fight over federal grants terminated last year by officials associated with the Department of Government Efficiency project, lawyers for some grantees are pressing the unusual argument that they\u2019re entitled to a percentage of recovered funds \u2013 a request they say their clients support.<\/p>\n
They\u2019ve asked the judge to order the administration to set aside the money while the government appeals the underlying ruling to resume the grants.<\/p>\n
$7.5m estimate<\/p>\n
Government lawyers argue that what\u2019s known as the \u201ccommon-fund doctrine\u201d doesn\u2019t apply and that reserving the money \u201cwould deprive grantees of funding that may be essential to the successful completion of their projects\u201d.<\/p>\n
The government estimates approximately $7.5 million is at issue, although the grantees\u2019 lawyers haven\u2019t specified how much they would seek.<\/p>\n
Lawyers for the grantees hit back that the court \u201cshould not credit the government\u2019s newfound concern\u201d for its clients.<\/p>\n
Legal fallout from Trump\u2019s presidency has extended beyond the traditional realm of federal agencies.<\/p>\n
A jazz musician is seeking more than $250 000 in legal fees from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, a quasi-public institution that sued him for cancelling a Christmas Eve concert after Trump\u2019s appointees to the board of trustees voted to add the president\u2019s name to the centre.<\/p>\n
A judge dismissed the case in June, finding the centre was unlikely to win and had retaliated against the musician, Charles \u201cChuck\u201d Redd, for exercising his right to public advocacy.<\/p>\n
A judge in a separate case later ordered the centre to remove Trump\u2019s name. The centre\u2019s lawyers \u2013 the Justice Department isn\u2019t involved \u2013 responded to Redd\u2019s fee request this week, calling it \u201cout of all proportion to the issue at stake, the non-complexity of case, the experience needed to handle it, and most importantly, the work needed to defend it\u201d.<\/p>\n
The Kennedy Center relies on a combination of public and private funding.<\/p>\n
The Kennedy Center\u2019s lawyers declined to comment and Redd\u2019s attorneys did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.<\/p>\n
\u00a9 2026 Bloomberg<\/p>\n
#Trumps #court #losses #leave #taxpayers #facing #millions #legal #fees<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The US government is on the hook for potentially millions of dollars in legal bills…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[1962,6842,203,215,932,1100,3573,2518,1983],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12566"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12566"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12566\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12566"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stock999.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}