PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10335 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10335 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10335 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10335 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-10 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Restoring Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Act of 2026 would define when a party counts as having won for purposes of an existing attorney’s-fee provision. It would recognize relief obtained through qualifying court orders, enforceable agreements, and certain changes by defendants or government bodies or officials. The definition would affect parties seeking attorney’s fees in cases pending when the bill became law or started afterward.
This Act may be cited as the Restoring Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Act of 2026.
Section 722 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: (d) For purposes of subsection (b), a party is considered prevailing if it has obtained relief through—
(1) a judicial order, including any order that conclusively resolves a claim by granting enduring relief on the merits that alters the legal relationship between the parties, or a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order that materially alters the relationship between the parties and is not reversed and regardless of any subsequent vacatur of the order on mootness grounds; (2) an enforceable written agreement or consent decree; or (3) a voluntary or unilateral change in position by the defendant, or government office, agency, or official, that renders the action or proceeding moot, deprives the party of standing, or that substantially grants the relief sought by the party.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any case that is— (1) pending on such date of enactment; or (2) commenced on or after such date of enactment.
Section 2 would add a definition of a prevailing party—a party treated as having won—to 42 U.S.C. 1988 specifically for purposes of subsection (b). The supplied bill does not reproduce that existing subsection.
Section 722 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: (d) For purposes of subsection (b), a party is considered prevailing if it has obtained relief through—
A party could qualify by obtaining relief through a court order. The proposal expressly includes an order that conclusively decides a claim on its substance, grants lasting relief, and changes the parties’ legal relationship.
(1) a judicial order, including any order that conclusively resolves a claim by granting enduring relief on the merits that alters the legal relationship between the parties
Preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders—court orders providing relief while a dispute is being resolved—would also qualify if they materially change the parties’ relationship and are not reversed. A later decision setting the order aside because the dispute no longer requires resolution would not disqualify the party.
or a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order that materially alters the relationship between the parties and is not reversed and regardless of any subsequent vacatur of the order on mootness grounds
Relief obtained through an enforceable written agreement or a consent decree—a court order embodying an agreed resolution—would also make a party qualify as prevailing.
a party is considered prevailing if it has obtained relief through—
(2) an enforceable written agreement or consent decree
A voluntary change, or a change made without agreement from the other side, by a defendant or government office, agency, or official could qualify. It must make the dispute no longer require resolution, remove the party’s legal basis to pursue the case, or substantially provide the relief the party sought.
a party is considered prevailing if it has obtained relief through—
(3) a voluntary or unilateral change in position by the defendant, or government office, agency, or official, that renders the action or proceeding moot, deprives the party of standing, or that substantially grants the relief sought by the party.
The bill and its amendment would take effect upon enactment and apply to cases pending that day and cases begun afterward.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any case that is— (1) pending on such date of enactment; or (2) commenced on or after such date of enactment.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 10, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on September 10, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-10T08:05:34Z. 2026-09-10: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-10: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-10. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Generally applicable access to a legal remedy does not by itself constitute a targeted benefit. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 10, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI