House Passes GOP Bill That Could Curb Civil Rights Lawsuits

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-724414p1.html?cr=00&pl=edit-00">Bikeworldtravel</a> / <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/?cr=00&pl=edit-00">Shutterstock.com</a>

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Last week, the House passed a GOP bill that would slap fines on people who file “frivolous lawsuits”—like that one against the Weather Channel for failing to predict a storm. Except that the bill could also discourage Americans from filing civil rights lawsuits, according to Democrats who oppose the bill.

The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, which was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), passed the House 228 to 195, with only three Democrats voting in favor. It would require courts to fine attorneys for bringing suits that are intended to harass the defendant, or whose claims are not based on fact or existing law, or are not backed by a legitimate argument for establishing new law.

“Lawsuit abuse is common in America because the lawyers who bring these frivolous cases have everything to gain and nothing to lose,” Smith said when the bill passed. He and fellow Republicans say that frivolous lawsuits waste thousands of court hours and cost companies billions of dollars each year.

But Democrats say the bill would have dangerous side effects. Smiths’ bill could also make it harder for people to successfully bring civil rights lawsuits, they say, because these cases often hinge on new types of legal issues—such as transgender rights—making them more vulnerable to being shot down as invalid by a court. (Earlier this month, House Speaker John Boehner called discrimination lawsuits brought by LGBT individuals “frivolous“.) Victims of discrimination may be less likely to file suit if they know they could be penalized for doing so.

The bill “will turn the clock back to a time when federal rules of civil procedure discouraged civil rights cases [and] limited judicial discretion,” House judiciary committee ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.) told The Hill after the bill passed, adding that the legislation would “have a disastrous impact on the administration of justice.”

So, it’s a good thing Smith’s bill isn’t going anywhere. The White House opposes it, and the Senate is unlikely to take the legislation up for a vote.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest