If you can stomach a slog through all the cant in this press release in news-article drag, you'll come to an unsettling mention of a proposed bill introduced by John Hostettler (R-Ind.) that would prevent the victorious party from being awarded attorney's fees only in Establishment Clause cases under the First Amendment.
I expect the bill to go down in flames, as it did when Hostettler proposed it two years ago, dying in committee—but it's pretty appalling that someone would even propose it. Just ponder the logic here for a minute: When a citizen successfully argues that the government has illegally violated his right to free speech, we try to ensure that he doesn't have to bankrupt himself just to make the government obey the Constitution. Is there any way to interpret this narrow exception other than as a desire to not see the Establishment Clause enforced, signalling that even if you can prove the government has broken the law, you may have to ruin yourself just to get it to stop?