Record Legal Fees in Environmental Settlements
The Biden administration has set a new benchmark for sue-and-settle agreements, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disbursing $10.9 million in legal fees between 2021 and 2024. This figure emerged from a recent study highlighting the collaboration between the EPA and environmental groups to establish policies that may not align with existing laws.
Sue-and-settle cases involve plaintiffs who take legal action, negotiate consent decrees that create new policies, and subsequently receive compensation for their attorney fees.
This practice is particularly prevalent in environmental legislation, where laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act serve as key arenas for these types of agreements.
Critics argue that this approach creates an unhealthy incentive for administrations to collaborate with environmentalists, leading to government policies that might not pass through Congress. Because these are legal settlements, they bind future administrations as if they were enacted into law.
The spending watchdog group Open the Books reported that from 2013 to 2024, the government engaged in hundreds of settlements and paid out $20.3 million in related legal fees.
During President Obama’s tenure, $5.7 million was awarded in legal fees; President Trump reduced this amount to $3.6 million, while President Biden’s administration saw a significant increase back up to $10.9 million.
The Sierra Club emerged as the largest beneficiary during this period, receiving over $4 million. Other organizations like Northwest Environmental Advocates and the Center for Biological Diversity also received substantial amounts.
The Trump administration attempted to curb this practice by directing the EPA in 2017 to stop using consent decrees to bypass traditional policymaking processes. However, these restrictions were lifted by the Biden EPA in 2022.
Open the Books noted that sue-and-settle practices can become even more problematic due to questionable employment transitions between private firms or advocacy groups and government positions. This raises concerns about whether agency lawyers are adequately defending their interests or are more inclined towards favorable settlements for litigants.
