The U.S. government faces potentially millions of dollars in legal bills after losing challenges to policies of the Trump administration, according to a Bloomberg News analysis of court records. Attorneys have sought fees exceeding $100,000 in at least 10 cases over the past year, totaling more than $2.5 million. The losses have occurred amid a broader record of legal success for the administration [1].
Federal agencies can be required to pay attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act of 1980 when they lose in court. Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels said in a statement that "the department has an obligation to protect taxpayer dollars, and that includes contesting fee requests when litigants seek more than the law allows." Houston-based lawyer Steven Brown, who is seeking more than $180,000 in fees in lawsuits contesting the cancellation of foreign students' legal status, said: "It's inherently American to be able to sue your government. It's important that when the government can't justify itself, courts can award costs."
The cases include the Supreme Court's June 30 decision against the administration's birthright citizenship order, a ruling described as a major setback for President Donald Trump [2].
Legal Basis and Scope of Fee Awards
The Equal Access to Justice Act of 1980 entitles "prevailing parties" to recoup legal expenses if the government's position was not "substantially justified," according to the law. The law sets eligibility caps based on net worth and size for individuals, businesses, local government agencies and other for-profit entities; nonprofits are covered if they have fewer than 500 employees. Attorney fees typically are not available until a case is over, including appeals, according to court records.
The statute has been described as a well-intended measure that has also generated taxpayer-funded payouts. Vincent Bruce wrote that taxpayers have provided "millions of dollars of monetary support to groups perpetuating abuse of a well-intended statute" [3]. Most fee payouts since 2020 under the law were below $100,000, and of 88 payments made in 2025 totaling $15 million, less than a quarter were for six figures, according to Bloomberg's analysis. Federal courts are split on whether the act applies in immigration cases; the Justice Department argues that it does not, and the Supreme Court is set to rule in the term beginning in October.
High-Dollar Fee Requests Under Review
The Justice Department is contesting fee requests totaling more than $1.5 million from the Association of American Universities in lawsuits over research reimbursement caps adopted by the Departments of War, Energy and Health and Human Services and the National Science Foundation. Government lawyers argue the association is not eligible for fees because the agencies "had a reasonable basis in law" and because member universities, including Harvard and Yale, paid extra dues to help fund the litigation. The association counters that it is ultimately responsible for the costs and that legal precedent does not bar recovery because of member support.
The government also argues the requested hourly rates, including amounts up to $500, are too high. The association's attorneys include Paul Clement, a prominent conservative litigator who served as a senior official under former President George W. Bush. In a separate matter, Charles "Chuck" Redd, a jazz musician, is seeking more than $250,000 in legal fees from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts after a judge dismissed the center's suit against him. The center's lawyers called the request "out 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." A judge separately ordered that Trump's name be stripped from the Kennedy Center [1].
Recent Fee Filings and Settlements
New six-figure fee requests were filed this month in lawsuits over restrictions on food benefits for low-income households and the removal of bike lanes in downtown Washington, according to court filings. The Justice Department has settled fee requests in at least three cases involving more than $100,000, including fights over funding for education research and teen pregnancy prevention programs; lawyers in those cases declined to disclose the amounts.
A federal judge in Florida ruled that former President Trump should pay opponents' fees as a sanction for bringing a "bad faith" $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. The judge did not impose a financial penalty on the government. Lawyers for the challengers filed papers asking for approximately $43,500. Demands for the government to pay opponents' legal bills have mounted as more lawsuits filed since the beginning of Trump's second term reach a final judgment.
Other Avenues for Legal Fee Recovery
Individuals who sue the government for injuries or property damage can recover attorney fees through the Judgment Fund, a central pool of federal money, according to the report. In a case over terminated federal grants linked to the Department of Government Efficiency project, lawyers for some grantees argue they are entitled to a percentage of recovered funds under the common-fund doctrine. The government estimates approximately $7.5 million is at issue and argues that the common-fund doctrine does not apply, saying that reserving money "would deprive grantees of funding that may be essential to the successful completion of their projects." Grantees' lawyers responded that the court "should not credit the government's newfound concern" for its clients.
In a separate line of court-ordered payments, the administration has begun returning $166 billion in tariff refunds after losing a challenge over import taxes, though consumers who paid higher prices are unlikely to see a cent [4].
Conclusion
The fee requests are now pending before judges, who will determine the amounts if the parties cannot agree. The Justice Department said it will continue to contest fee demands that exceed what the law allows. The case record also shows that litigation against the government can create financial obligations beyond judgments themselves. As David Hapgood wrote, "Lawyers also find government to be a good client" [5].
References
- JustTheNews.com. "Trump suffers rare court setbacks amid broader record of legal success". June 7, 2026.
- 100percentfedup.com. "JUST IN: Supreme Court Issues Birthright Citizenship Decision". June 30, 2026.
- Vincent Bruce. "Against the odds a path forward for rural America".
- JustTheNews.com. "Court-ordered tariff refunds bypass consumers who paid". May 1, 2026.
- David Hapgood. "The Screwing Of The Average Man".
Explainer Infographic
Please contact us for more information.