The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2025 (H.R. 5258) is a bipartisan bill introduced in the 119th Congress (2025-2026) aimed at curbing frivolous lawsuits in federal courts by reinstating mandatory sanctions on attorneys who file baseless claims. It builds on similar legislation from prior sessions, such as the 2017 version (H.R. 720), which passed the House but stalled in the Senate. As of October 23, 2025, H.R. 5258 remains pending, having been introduced on August 1, 2025, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee without further action yet.
This act addresses concerns that changes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in 1993 – making sanctions for frivolous filings discretionary – have led to an increase in meritless litigation, costing businesses and the economy billions annually (estimated at over $250 billion in direct tort costs). Proponents argue it restores accountability to the legal system by deterring “lawsuit abuse,” where attorneys file weak cases to extract settlements, harming defendants through prolonged litigation and fees. The bill’s core goal is to protect victims of such abuse by ensuring full compensation for their expenses.
The bill primarily amends Rule 11(c) to:
– – Mandate Sanctions: Courts must impose penalties on attorneys, law firms, or parties filing frivolous, meritless, or abusive claims, rather than leaving it optional.
– – Types of Sanctions: These can include monetary fines, reimbursement of the opposing party’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, public censures, or other appropriate measures.
– – Eliminate Safe Harbor: Removes the 21-day “safe harbor” provision, which previously allowed filers to withdraw or correct pleadings to avoid sanctions.
– – Scope: Applies to federal civil actions, with potential extension to state cases affecting interstate commerce in some versions.
– – Additional Accountability: Requires prevailing parties to recover full litigation costs if a Rule 11 motion succeeds, and subjects the discovery phase to sanctions.
These changes aim to make frivolous filings riskier for attorneys, potentially reducing court congestion and economic burdens.
Sponsors and Support
– – Primary Sponsor: Representative Doug Collins (R-GA), with cosponsors including Representatives Mike Johnson (R-LA) and others focused on judicial reform.
– – Historical Backing: Earlier iterations were championed by figures like former House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), with cosponsors such as Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK).
– – Endorsements: Supported by business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which highlight real-world impacts (e.g., a New York ladder manufacturer bankrupted by litigation costs despite no lost judgments).
Prior Versions:
– – 2017 (H.R. 720): Passed House (230-188) but did not advance in Senate.
– – 2015 (H.R. 758): Passed House Judiciary but stalled.
– – 2011 (H.R. 966) and 2004 (H.R. 4571): Similar proposals that did not become law.
Given the Republican majority in the 119th Congress and alignment with tort reform priorities, it could see movement if prioritized, but faces procedural hurdles like committee approval.
Supporters view it as essential for economic efficiency and fairness, but opponents – including civil rights advocates and the American Bar Association – argue it could:
– – Chill Legitimate Claims: Novel or high-risk cases (e.g., civil rights or environmental suits) might be deterred due to sanction fears.
– – Increase Satellite Litigation: More motions for sanctions could clog courts further.
– – Disproportionate Impact: May burden plaintiffs’ attorneys more than defendants, potentially undermining access to justice.
Overall, the act represents ongoing Republican-led efforts to tighten federal litigation rules, with its fate likely tied to broader judicial reform agendas in the 119th Congress. For the full bill text and updates, check Congress.gov.