SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
July, 22 2011, 12:17pm EDT
Contact:
John Buse, (323) 533-4416
Study: Barely Half of Attorney Fees in Forest Service Cases Go to Environmental Groups
New Data Debunk Claim That Nonprofits Are Getting Rich From Fees Under Equal Access to Justice Act
TUSCON, AZ
A new study in the Journal of Forestry finds that barely half of attorney fee payments from cases involving the U.S. Forest Service went to environmental groups over a seven-year study period. The finding contradicts recent right-wing claims that environmental groups are getting rich under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which allows citizens, nonprofits and others to collect attorney fees when they prevail in court cases.
"It's absurd to claim that environmental groups or anyone else are getting rich by making the government follow the law. This study gives hard evidence of that," said John Buse, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity.
The paper, The Equal Access to Justice Act and U.S. Forest Service Land Management: Incentives to Litigate?, was authored by M.J. Mortimer and R.W. Malmsheimer and published in the September 2011 issue of the Journal of Forestry. The researchers studied EAJA fees paid by the Forest Service between 1999 and 2005. According to the paper, the Service paid out $6,137,584 during that period, of which $3.2 million (52 percent) went to 14 environmental groups that prevailed in their cases. Other funds went to commodity groups, law firms, attorneys and individuals. The Forest Service didn't list the recipients of about $1.5 million in fees, according to the study.
Equal Access to Justice Act fees can be awarded to qualified groups or individuals who win lawsuits challenging a government action and show that the government's position was not "substantially justified." Between 2002 and 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity has been awarded EAJA fees in several cases it has won, but these awards --from all sources, not just the Forest Service -- account for less than half of 1 percent of the Center's income during this period. Generally, the study indicates that the Forest Service paid on average about $32,000 per year to each of the prevailing 14 environmental groups -- a tiny fraction of the total incomes reported by these groups.
"The Equal Access to Justice Act is meant to help level the playing field when individuals, small businesses and nonprofits go to court to get the government to follow the law," Buse said. "It works: No one's getting rich, and we have more government agencies being held accountable to the laws of the land, which helps us all."
The authors of the study were also unable to conclude that the availability of EAJA fees has been the cause of more frequent lawsuits against the Forest Service.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Court Docs Expose 'Incredibly Cynical' Trump Plot to Fire Wildlife Workers Amid Shutdown
"The Trump administration's extremely short-sighted effort to gut the Fish and Wildlife Service will throw gasoline on the raging fire that is the extinction crisis," said one conservation advocate.
Oct 21, 2025
Court documents released Monday show that the Trump administration is exploiting the ongoing government shutdown to pursue mass firings at the US Fish and Wildlife Service amid the nation's worsening extinction crisis.
The new filings came as part of a legal fight between the administration and federal worker unions, which took emergency action earlier this month to stop the latest wave of terminations.
While the unions secured a victory last week in the form of a temporary restraining order against the new firings, the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court has repeatedly proven willing to permit large-scale job cuts that labor unions and legal experts say are patently illegal and dangerous.
Tara Zuardo, a senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity, said Monday that the newly revealed administration push to terminate dozens of staffers at the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is "really sad and troubling." The court filings show that the administration has proposed eliminating positions at the FWS Migratory Birds Program, Office of Conservation Investment, Fish and Aquatic Conservation, National Wildlife Refuge System, and other areas.
"The Trump administration's extremely short-sighted effort to gut the Fish and Wildlife Service will throw gasoline on the raging fire that is the extinction crisis," said Zuardo. "We've lost 3 billion birds since 1970, yet the administration is slashing funding for migratory birds. It's incredibly cynical to cut programs that help struggling fish and other aquatic animals and assist landowners in conserving endangered species habitats."
The latest firing push is part of the Trump administration's sweeping effort to terminate thousands of jobs at the US Interior Department, which oversees FWS.
The attempted terminations come months after the Trump administration issued a proposal that would eviscerate habitat protections for endangered species in the United States—a push that closely aligns with the far-right Project 2025 agenda. More than 150,000 Americans used the public comment process to express opposition to the Trump administration's plan.
The Center for Biological Diversity said Monday that the proposed mass elimination of jobs at FWS would "deliver devastating blows to programs put in place to protect, restore, and conserve bird populations and their habitats."
"Court disclosures also report severe cuts to additional agencies including the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Geological Survey, and others," the group noted.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Instead of Doing TikTok Videos, She Should Be Serving Her Constituents,' Johnson Says While Refusing to Swear In Grijalva
One congresswoman pointed out that "she does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email."
Oct 20, 2025
Congressional Democrats were among the critics taking aim at US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Monday for the Louisiana Republican's "genuinely insane" remarks on his refusal to swear in Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva of Arizona.
Twenty days into a federal government shutdown that resulted from Republicans' fight for healthcare cuts set to negatively impact tens of millions of Americans, Johnson said he would administer the oath of office to Grijalva, "I hope, on the first day we come back."
"Instead of doing TikTok videos, she should be serving her constituents," Johnson added. "She could be taking their calls. She could be directing them, trying to help them through the crisis that the Democrats have created by shutting down the government."
Another Democrat elected to represent Arizonans, Congressman Greg Stanton, fired back at the speaker: "How pathetic. Mike Johnson is now blaming Adelita Grijalva for not doing her job. Quit taking orders from Trump and swear her in now."
Grijalva won the special election for her late father's seat last month, pre-shutdown. Johnson could have swiftly administered the oath of office, and despite the shutdown, he can still do so. He has denied that he has intentionally delayed swearing her in to push off a vote on releasing files about deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a former friend of President Donald Trump—but many critics don't believe him.
Responding to the speaker on Monday, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said: "Republicans refuse to swear in an elected member of Congress. Why? They are covering up the Epstein files."
As Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes threatens legal action over the delay—with a filing expected this week—Grijalva, Democratic lawmakers, and others have used various social media platforms to call out Johnson.
In one such video, posted online last week, Grijalva speaks with Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), the newest member of the House, about how he was sworn in just a day after winning his special election, like two of his GOP colleagues.
As viewers of Grijalva's videos know, she finally got access to her office on Capitol Hill last week, but her ability to functionally serve constituents remains limited.
Pointing to similar comments that the House speaker made last week on CNN, Congresswoman Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.) explained Monday: "Unlike Mike Johnson, I actually spoke to Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva this week. She does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email to receive news like the rest of Congress. Why? Because until Johnson swears her in, she is not a member of Congress."
Podcaster and writer Matthew Sitman is among those highlighting how this is bigger than Grijalva. He said: "I really don't think it's possible to make a big enough deal of this. If it's accepted that this quisling has absolute, unilateral power to decide when, or even if, to swear in duly elected representatives, they will further abuse that power—why not refuse other Democrats?"
Writer Nick Field similarly wondered, "So why do we think Donald Trump and Mike Johnson will accept the results and seat new House members if they lose the majority in next year's midterms?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Betrayal': Ranchers Slam Trump Plan to Buy Beef From Argentina With US Tax Dollars
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," said an Illinois cattle producer.
Oct 20, 2025
US ranchers and industry groups are responding critically to President Donald Trump's proposal that the United States "would buy some beef from Argentina," in a bid to "bring our beef prices down," while pursuing an up to $40 billion bailout for the South American country.
Trump made the suggestion to reporters on Air Force One Sunday, according to the Associated Press. A few days earlier, he'd said that a deal to cut the price of beef was "gonna be coming down pretty soon." The AP noted various reasons for "stubbornly high" US prices, including drought and reduced imports from Mexico.
"President Trump's plan to buy beef from Argentina is a betrayal of the American rancher," Christian Lovell, an Illinois cattle producer and senior director of programs at the organization Farm Action, said in a Monday statement. "Those of us who raise cattle have finally started to see what profit looks like after facing years of high input costs and market manipulation by the meatpacking monopoly."
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," he continued, referring to one of the impacts of Trump's tariff war. "Importing Argentinian beef would send US cattle prices plummeting—and with the meatpacking industry as consolidated as it is, consumers may not see lower beef prices either. Washington should be focused on fixing our broken cattle market, not rewarding foreign competitors."
"Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people."
"With these actions, President Trump risks acting more like the president of Argentina than president of the United States," Lovell declared. The US leader is a key ally of the nation's actual president, Javier Milei, whose austerity agenda has created the need for a massive bailout from Washington, DC.
Farm Action's proposed fix for the US is to tackle the "structurally flawed system" with three steps: "Reinstate Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for beef and pork, restore competitive markets by enforcing antitrust laws, and rebuild the US cow herd to achieve national self-reliance in beef production."
The group was far from alone in criticizing Trump's weekend remarks and offering alternative solutions to reduce US prices.
"We appreciate President Trump's interest in addressing the US beef market, which has been producing all-time record-high consumer beef prices," said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, the nation's largest cattle association, in a statement. "We urge the president to address the fundamental problems in the beef market, not just its symptom."
"The symptom is that the US has shrunk its beef cow herd to such a low level that it can no longer produce enough beef to satisfy domestic demand," he continued. "But the fundamental problem is that decades of failed trade policies have allowed cheap, undifferentiated imports to displace the domestic cow herd, driving hundreds of thousands of cattle farmers and ranchers and millions of domestic beef cows out of the domestic beef supply chain."
"In addition, the nation's beef packers and beef retailers have been allowed to concentrate to monopolistic levels, enabling them to interfere with competitive market forces," he asserted. "Attempting to lower domestic beef prices simply by inviting even more imports will both exacerbate and accelerate the ongoing dismantling of the domestic beef supply chain."
Instead of promoting US beef production, Trump now wants to establish a preferred position for Argentine beef in the US. Why, exactly? Is this what America First means?
[image or embed]
— Scott Horton (@robertscotthorton.bsky.social) October 20, 2025 at 2:23 PM
National Cattlemen's Beef Association CEO Colin Woodall said that "NCBA's family farmers and ranchers have numerous concerns with importing more Argentinian beef to lower prices for consumers. This plan only creates chaos at a critical time of the year for American cattle producers, while doing nothing to lower grocery store prices."
"Additionally, Argentina has a deeply unbalanced trade relationship with the US," Woodall noted. "In the past five years Argentina has sold more than $801 million of beef into the US market. By comparison, the US has sold just over $7 million worth of American beef to Argentina. Argentina also has a history of foot-and-mouth disease, which, if brought to the United States, could decimate our domestic livestock production."
Justin Tupper, president of the US Cattlemen's Association, highlighted the rising costs that ranchers are enduring.
"The cost of producing beef today is accurately represented in the consumer markets where it is sold," he said. "Ranchers are facing historic highs for feed, fuel, labor, and land—and those costs have risen far faster than beef prices on grocery shelves."
"When policymakers hint at intervention or suggest quick fixes, they can shake the market's foundation and directly impact the livelihoods of ranchers who depend on stable, transparent pricing," Tupper warned in the wake of the president's recent remarks. "Sudden price moves make it harder for independent producers to plan, invest, and keep their operations running."
"Efforts to support consumers must consider the economic realities on the ground and ensure the voices of independent ranchers lead the discussion," he added. "Market-driven prices—not mandates or panic interventions—have delivered value for generations. Let's focus on transparency, market integrity, and maintaining the conditions for sustainable rural economies."
Trump's signal that the US may buy more beef from Argentina comes as poll after poll shows that Americans—whose federal minimum wage hasn't increased in over 15 years—are stressed about the climbing costs of groceries. In addition to beef, shoppers are facing higher prices for staples such as coffee and eggs.
The Democratic National Committee also called out Trump's proposal on Monday, with Kendall Witmer, the DNC's rapid response director, charging that "Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people, who are struggling to afford everything from rent to groceries."
"Because of Trump, farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy, and the government has been shut down for almost a month," Witmer added. "You would think that the so-called 'America First' president would be focused on reopening the government and saving millions of Americans from skyrocketing healthcare premiums—but Trump is showing his true colors. He only cares about helping himself and his friends, even at the expense of the American people. Let's be clear: MAGA now stands for Make Argentina Great Again."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular