Students and faculty who force a public college to drop a speech policy could more easily recover their legal bills under a bill introduced in the House this month. The measure would broaden when plaintiffs in federal civil rights suits, including First Amendment challenges to public universities, qualify for attorney's fees.
H.R. 10335, the Restoring Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 2026, was introduced Sept. 10 by Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The committee placed it on its Sept. 14 markup agenda alongside six other bills.
The bill amends 42 U.S.C. 1988, the 1976 law that lets courts award attorney's fees to the "prevailing party" in civil rights suits, including First Amendment challenges against public universities. Plaintiffs would count as prevailing if they win a final judgment; a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order that is not reversed, even if later vacated as moot; an enforceable settlement or consent decree; or a voluntary change by the government that moots the case or substantially grants the relief sought. The change would apply to pending cases as well as new ones.
That last provision matters for campus speech fights, can often end when a college revises a policy after being sued. Grothman has argued that the government should not escape accountability simply by changing course once a lawsuit forces it to confront an unconstitutional policy, Seehafer News reported. He said the bill would allow fee recovery "when litigation results in meaningful, enforceable relief."
The measure responds to Lackey v. Stinnie, a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in February 2025. Virginia drivers won a preliminary injunction against a law suspending licenses over unpaid court fines. The legislature then repealed the law, mooting the case. The court held that preliminary injunctions do not conclusively resolve the rights of parties on the merits and so cannot make a plaintiff a prevailing party. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) endorsed the bill, arguing that speech disputes are unusually time sensitive. The group stated that “Once a court lets a protest or event go forward, there may be nothing left to decide.” Free-speech victories also rarely produce large damage awards, FIRE noted, making fee recovery key to finding lawyers. The group listed a coalition spanning the ideological spectrum, including the ACLU, Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty Counsel, Protect Democracy and the Institute for Free Speech.
