Challenge to Federal Efforts to Deprive Social Security Claimants of Equal Access Results in Sanction and Warning

Prior to 1980 few people were able to challenge the federal government on issues such as the government denying them social security benefits, civil rights, etc. The reason was simple: challenging the United States in court required large amounts of money to pay attorneys fees and costs; something unemployed disabled persons and minorities had little of at hand.
In 1980 to correct this inequality, and to provide the little guy equal access to court, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) was created and made into federal law. Under EAJA, the little guy, (for example; minorities, the disabled, or the unemployed) who was denied his social security benefits could now file a claim in federal court against the United States. If the little guy won his claim against the US, then under EAJA, the US would be required to pay his attorneys fees. Finally the little guy could stand in equal footing with the US in open court...until now.
Under the current Administration, there has apparently been a directive issued to the United States federal attorneys offices that from now on essentially any and all EAJA claims are to be challenged and objected to by the US Attorneys office. Furthermore, the Administration is demanding that if the EAJA fee is still successfully awarded by the Court over their objections, the attorneys fees are not to be paid or provided to the attorney who successfully represented the little guy.
The apparent intended result of this Administrative push is obvious; to once again drive out and deprive the disabled, the unemployed, the poor, and the minorities back out of the courts and away from challenging the current government on issues of civil rights and liberty. As the little guy can no longer pay for attorneys fees, only the well-financed claimant will once again have access to the court system.
This office was handed this direct challenge by the US Government in its own recent victories for disabled persons in their Social Security claims against the United States. After winning the claims, we filed for attorneys fees under EAJA only to be openly challenged and objected, and then finding our attorneys fees ordered not to be paid to us. In direct fight for the rights of the little guy, we openly challenged this alleged deprivation of rightful EAJA fees, only to find ourselves being ordered into court, fined and sanctioned and warned against raising such challenges in the future.
One can trust that unless significant changes occur with current government, "equal access" to courts will quickly become less and less equal for the little guy and perhaps even a thing of the past; nonetheless we will continue in our struggle and fight for the little guy.