Source: https://earthjustice.org/features/legislative-attacks-on-access-to-justice
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 09:18:02+00:00

Document:
Members of Congress, with support from powerful special interests, are mounting a quiet attack on the American public’s right to access the courts.
The courts provide a means for people and communities to hold wealthy corporations accountable, and serve as an important check on the power of Congress and the executive branch.
In the past year, the 115th Congress has introduced more than 50 pieces of legislation that would restrict people’s ability to use the courts to defend civil rights, civil liberties, consumer protections, public health and safety, and the environment.
Without urgent action, these efforts will erect permanent obstacles that will keep people and communities from going to court to defend their rights, their lives, their livelihoods, and the places they love.
Learn about these threats at Earthjustice's in-depth report, Access to Justice: Defending Our Country And Our Courts, and about the stories of people who faced off against rich and powerful special interest groups and were able to beat the odds—because they were able to get into court.
The following are among the most serious legislative attacks to date. Take action to defend your judicial rights by contacting your senators and representative.
Summary Unraveled a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule that would have prohibited banks, lenders and other corporations from forcing consumers with grievances into arbitration. What is arbitration? It is a lot like a casino: the house always wins. This form of dispute resolution tilts decisions in favor of agencies and corporations, because the agency sets the rules and hand-picks the arbitrator—who is likely to side with the agency. This law also prevents individuals from joining together in class action lawsuits in federal courts against banks, predatory lenders and other bad actors.
Summary Amendment to FAA bill would limit time for filing legal challenge to a final state action on a highway project, including for environmental review, from two years down to 150 days.
Summary Overrides and eliminates the courts’ injunctive relief power in favor of a Congressional stay of a Clean Air Act rule meant to reduce toxic air pollution from brick manufacturers which disproportionately impacts poor and rural communities. Delays effectiveness of the rule until all court challenges are resolved—a judicial remedy normally reserved to the courts under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Summary Amends the historic Americans with Disabilities Act to prohibit the “right to sue” for violations of the public accommodations provision of the law without first jumping through multiple onerous additional legal requirements that shifts burden of compliance to those with disabilities whose civil rights are being violated and could delay justice for months or years; also interferes with courts by requiring the Judicial Conference of the United States to amend Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to develop an alternative dispute resolution process to steer cases on public accommodation violations out of court.
Summary Prohibits settlement payments to organizations that help damaged communities recover. For example, this bill could prevent the Justice Department from requiring an oil company to fund necessary health services or help small businesses in the wake of an oil spill, such as the Deepwater Horizon or Exxon Valdez disasters. Related to a directive by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to forbid third-party settlements. Text also included in H.R. 10, Blocking Aid to Remedy Polluter and Industry Wrongs, at §393.
Summary Rider language tucked into this fiscal year 2018 Appropriations bill would prevent court settlements under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act from awarding attorney’s fees. Aims to deter people and organizations from bringing environmental lawsuits by making them cost prohibitive. The result is more polluted air and water and loss of precious plants and animals.
Summary Rider language tucked into this fiscal year 2018 Appropriations bill would defund a specific 2006 court settlement to restore fish species under the Endangered Species Act in the San Joaquin River in California.
Summary Restricts people from seeking relief for harms suffered from medical malpractice, dangerous drugs or medical devices, and even intentional harms, while overriding some state laws. This bill caps jury awards for pain and suffering including loss of limb or sight, and severe or permanent disfigurement, which benefits no one except the insurance industry.
Summary One section of this proposed financial legislation prohibits settlement payments to third parties. This would prevent settlement money from going to groups that work on fixing the problems caused by polluters and corporations that break the law. Includes language from H.R. 732, Preventing Polluter Restitution to Harmed Communities.
Summary Obliterates class action lawsuits through severe restrictions to class requirements—thereby blocking Americans from joining together to challenge wealthy corporate wrongdoing in consumer, employment and civil rights cases. The proposed legislation also includes text that makes it more difficult for victims of asbestos diseases to receive compensation and compromises their privacy by putting their personal data in a public database, exposing them to online scammers. Bill amended by committee to also include text of HR 906, Attacking Asbestos Sufferers.
Summary Allows corporate defendants to find more favorable forums for litigation, which would include pushing cases from state to federal courts, raising the costs for groups seeking to hold powerful corporations accountable for wrongdoing.
Summary Parts of this bill unconstitutionally prevent an agency major rule from taking effect unless Congress approves it. What is a ‘major rule’? Defined by a bill's sponsor as having a $100 million cost to comply by industry, regardless of economic or health benefits.If Congress does approve such a rule, the bill prohibits judicial review of that decision, blocking the courts from keeping check on the legislative branch.
Summary Would restrict the awarding of attorney’s fees under the Endangered Species Act, making it cost prohibitive to bring cases that protect imperiled plants and animals. It also would shift payer of fees from the U.S. Treasury to federal agencies. This would make the underfunded agencies charged with protecting species, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department, more cash-strapped in that work.
Summary Would halt most agency efforts to implement critical public health and environmental laws. This provision would allow the presidential administration to tank a rule that it and its polluter benefactors didn’t like, while shielding that decision from oversight by independent federal judges.
Summary Narrows overall judicial review and amends Administrative Procedure Act as follows: reduces time to file legal claim from six years to 180 days; limits scope of record court can review; interferes with court discretion on preliminary injunction balancing test by rewriting FRCP 65 as applied to federal permits; suggests FRCP 65(c) bonding fees of up to $5 million — all of which is designed to chill public engagement, while at the same time, expanding judicial rights for industry.
Summary Would eliminate judicial review and access to independent courts at sole discretion of agency by sending case/disputes of forest management actions to binding arbitration. What is arbitration? It is a lot like a casino: the house always wins. This form of dispute resolution tilts decisions in favor of agencies and corporations, because the agency sets the rules and hand-picks the arbitrator—who is likely to side with the agency. Would also privatize agency actions by allowing privately written plans to become agency final action, while also evading public notice and comment, and due process protections; and allow agency to recover attorney fees, while banning same for other prevailing parties.
Summary Would block environmental review of energy development proposals on public land and limit judicial challenges to permits to within a tight timeframe. This plays in favor of oil and gas and other extractive industries. The legislation also requires cases to be filed in the D.C. Circuit court and requires that court to “resolve” the case within 180 days. These arbitrary place and time limits are designed as a “get out of jail free” card—when the judicial review doesn't meet the arbitrary restrictions, rules are deemed "unreviewable," and access to the courts is denied. This bill also blocks recovery of attorney fees for successful challengers to these permits and forces the loser to pay the other side’s attorney fees, deterring individuals, communities and small organizations from taking wealthy corporations to court.
Summary Would force the losing party in a Clean Water Act case to foot all legal costs—not just for their side, but for their opponents, which could include wealthy corporations and the government. The general rule in American courts is that all parties bear their own costs. This “loser pays” provision would have a chilling effect on people and communities’ abilities to take a Clean Water Act case to court. Low-income communities are more likely than their wealthier counterparts to be exposed to water pollution. A “loser pays” provision makes them less able to risk losing and having to pay the other side’s legal fees.
Summary §5 does the following: restricts judicial review through limits to filing deadlines and venue for ‘energy-related’ causes of action on Indian lands; eliminates the possibility of fee recovery under both EAJA and the Judgment Fund; applies “loser pays” fee shifting on all “energy related actions” on which the plaintiff does not prevail.
Summary §6: transfer of federal lands to states not subject to judicial review.
Summary Allows agency to delist Mexican gray wolf without being subject to judicial review.
Summary Prohibits any effort to list the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act for at least 10 years. Also prohibits the Fish and Wildlife Service from modifying its 2015 actions on the species, and prohibits Interior from making any changes to resource management plans inconsistent from state plans. Bill also waives National Environmental Policy Act review. All of the above prohibitions are barred from any judicial review or oversight.
Summary §2(j) prohibits Legal Service Corp. from providing legal assistance to any undocumented non-citizen farm worker, for nonimmigrant farm workers under an arbitration agreement with employer LSC barred from assisting farm worker and access to worker severely restricted.
Summary Amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to revise the Energy Star program. Specifically, the bill prohibits “right to sue” via breach of warranty claims or private claims or rights of action against manufacturers of products that are disqualified from the program, if: (1) the product has been certified by a certification body recognized by the program, (2) the Environmental Protection Agency has approved corrective measures, and (3) the responsible party has fully complied with all such measures.
Summary Reduces injured people’s ability to bring claims for medical malpractice including limits on noneconomic damages, time limits for bringing lawsuits, preempting state law, shielding providers from liability in certain circumstances, constrains use of expert witnesses, and overrides judicial branch rules of evidence. Similar to H.R. 1215: Denying Full Justice to Victims of Negligent and Criminal Health Care Providers.
Summary §4(j)(3) bars from both federal and state judicial review any actions of states to regulate intrastate endangered and threatened species.
Summary §101 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow the Dept. of Labor—with first providing notice to employers—to “initiate an investigation of any … employer that employs nonimmigrants (under the H-1B visa program) if the Secretary of Labor has reasonable cause to believe that the petitioner employer is not in compliance with this subsection,” but then allows the Agency to waive that notice at its own determination which is then non-reviewable in court.
Summary Caps monetary recovery in class action lawsuits to $500K and restricts court’s discretion on minimum damages for each member of the class.
Summary §4 eliminates, for certain criminal proceedings, court discretion to grant equitable relief from a final judgment when justified; §5 limits injunctive relief, limits non-economic damages against an arresting officer or department, and limits/prohibits recovery of attorney fees in successful actions against arresting officer/department.
Summary §107: review of forest management actions must use binding arbitration instead of judicial review.
Summary §2 creates a requirement that federal agencies identify communications about federal programs deemed “advertising” and identify funding sources, but §4 provides no judicial review or other public enforcement mechanism.
Summary §2 limits court remedies, “including damages, costs, or attorney fees” for federal employees alleging discrimination including violations under the Civil Rights Act, Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, Congressional Accountability Act (for congressional employees), Fair Labor Standards Act, and “any law protecting the employment rights of veterans.” The bill also would allow a federal employee to be terminated for seeking a court remedy in excess of the limits in the bill.
Summary Overall, would limit access to court and limit the checks and balances provided by the judiciary on one specific reservoir infrastructure project in Texas as follows: narrows overall judicial review; reduces time to file legal claim from six years to 60 days; congressionally limits standing to FEIS commenters; limits venue to E.D. TX; interferes with court discretion on preliminary injunction balancing test under FRCP 65; makes FRCP 65(c) bonding fees mandatory; provides catch-all prohibition to creating right to judicial review.
Summary §4 requires annual report to Congress disclosing expenditures for ESA cases including award of attorney fees; §5 restricts the award of attorney fees under the ESA citizen suit provision to EAJA capped rates, rather than judgment fund rates for other citizen suit statutes as determined by court. Also, could shift payer of fees from Treasury to agencies, making protecting species harder.
Summary Prohibits any effort to list the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act for at least 10 years. Also prohibits the Fish and Wildlife Service from modifying its 2015 actions on the species, and prohibits Interior from making any changes to resource management plans inconsistent from state plans. All of the above prohibitions are barred from any judicial review or oversight.
Summary §2 changes judicial intervention rules for ESA related cases and forces a court allowing interveners to refer the case to a mediation program or a magistrate judge, encourages court to apply “loser pays,” prohibits award of legal expenses to plaintiffs under settlement/consent decree, prohibits settlement/consent decree unless no political entity (state, county, town, etc) which the agency “believes a species occurs” objects.
Summary §106 eliminates access to independent courts at sole discretion of agency by sending case/disputes of forest management actions to binding arbitration; §107 requires, for all other legal challenges, bonding requirements which must be met before case can proceed, in effect forcing losing plaintiff party to pay agency legal expenses.
Summary §4(j)(3) bars from both Federal and state judicial review any state actions to regulate intrastate endangered and threatened species.
Summary §7 and §8: final rule for gray wolves in Great Lakes and Wyoming not subject to judicial review.
Summary §7 eliminates access to independent courts at sole discretion of agency by sending certain case/disputes of forest management actions to binding arbitration; §7 also overrides and restricts EAJA process for awarding fees and rate of fees through new definitions determined by the Secretary.
Summary §564 eliminates class actions pertaining to enforcement of immigration laws, limits prospective relief courts can order, time-limits preliminary injunctions to 90 days, orders independent federal courts to “promptly rule on” motions of the executive branch, limits scope of settlements and consent decrees.
Summary Eliminates judicial review and access to independent courts at sole discretion of agency by sending case/disputes of forest management actions to binding arbitration; privatizes agency actions by allowing privately written plans to become agency final action while also evading public notice and comment, and due process protections.
Take action today to defend your judicial rights by contacting your senators and representative.

References: §393
 §5
 §6
 §2
 §4
 §101
 §4
 §5
 §107
 §2
 §4
 §2
 §4
 §5
 §2
 §106
 §107
 §4
 §7
 §8
 §7
 §7
 §564