The nation's largest funder of civil legal aid condemned a House appropriations proposal to slash its budget for fiscal year 2027 by more than half, warning Thursday the reduction could leave nearly 3 million Americans without help for critical civil legal problems.

Earlier this month, the Legal Services Corp., which funds 129 independent legal aid organizations across the 50 states, the District of Columbia and all U.S. territories through grants, asked Congress for $2.14 billion.

The proposal by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, or CJS, would earmark only $268 million for the LSC, a reduction of $272 million from its current $540 million budget. If approved, the House-sponsored budget would represent the lowest LSC appropriation since 1983, according to the organization. The White House had proposed eliminating the organization completely, proposing only a $21 million "closeout" budget.

"A funding cut of this magnitude would mean that more than 2.8 million Americans could lose access to legal help or see their cases go unresolved — leaving critical legal problems that directly affect people's safety, stability and health unaddressed," the LSC said in a statement Thursday.

LSC funds provide legal aid to indigent people on a wide range of issues, including housing, veteran benefits, disaster relief and record expungement, among other issues. It highlighted that the budget reduction comes as low-income Americans are receiving inadequate or no legal help for roughly 92% of their substantial civil legal problems.

The organization said children and domestic violence survivors would be among those most severely affected.

In a 2022 study on the "justice gap" — the divide between the high volume of civil legal needs among low-income individuals and the limited resources available to address them — LSC found its grantees are unable to serve nearly half of people who are eligible for legal aid services because of insufficient funding.

Since 2023, LSC grantees have reported losing more than $112 million, or over 30%, of their non-LSC funding sources.

"These legal services organizations are already turning away half of the eligible Americans who need their help due to a lack of resources," LSC President Ron Flagg said in the statement. "To cut LSC funding by over 50% now would amount to a complete failure to address the vast needs of millions of Americans."

The organization said it has long enjoyed bipartisan support, largely because civil legal aid funded by LSC reaches communities nationwide regardless of politics.

LSC noted its grantees help more than 6 million people annually, providing no-cost direct representation, resources and education for civil legal matters involving domestic violence, disaster recovery, consumer scams and fraud, housing, and more.

The people who benefit from these services have an annual income at or below 125% of the federal poverty guideline, a threshold that is currently $41,250 for a family of four living in the contiguous U.S., or $19,950 for an individual.

"Bipartisan members of Congress have demonstrated time and time again that they understand the need for civil legal services in their communities and that they see the value in investing in justice for all Americans," Flagg said in the statement. In a recent interview with Law360, he called funding for LSC a "smart public investment."

An LSC analysis estimated a seven-fold return on investment for each dollar spent on funding civil legal aid.

"Reducing the investment in civil legal services would result in losing the economic benefits that come from preventing homelessness, avoiding costly health crises, keeping people employed, and connecting families to benefits they are legally entitled to," Flagg said.

At least two members of the House decried the proposed budget cut during a hearing Thursday on Capitol Hill.

"This bill abandons our most vulnerable constituents who can't afford a lawyer when they're facing eviction, seeking safety from domestic violence or are denied benefits that they've earned," U.S. Rep. Grace Meng, a Democrat from Queens and ranking member of the CJS Subcommittee, said on the chamber's floor.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the ranking member of the full House Appropriations Committee, called the proposed cut "foolish."

The proposal must still advance through the full House and Senate appropriations process.

--Editing by Covey Son.