HLLI filed an amicus brief in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Merrick Garland, opposing the Department of Justice’s emergency motion to stay a nationwide injunction against enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA).
Docket: No. 24-40792 (5th Cir.) The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute (HLLI) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Merrick Garland, opposing the Department of Justice’s emergency motion to stay a district court’s nationwide injunction against the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). HLLI argues that the CTA is unconstitutional and that the district court’s…
The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute (HLLI), in collaboration with Dhillon Law Group and Young America’s Foundation, filed an amicus brief to protect the free speech rights of two minor students and their mother.
HLLI filed an amicus brief with Dhillon Law Group and Young America's Foundation in support of the free speech rights of two minor students and their mother who are asking the Sixth Circuit to reverse a lower court's decision upholding their school district's ban on clothing in school with the slogan "Let's Go Brandon."
Minnesota Reformer wrote an update about our case, Kohls v Ellison, in which a Stanford misinformation expert admitting to using artificial intelligence to draft a court document that contained fake citations about AI.
The Stanford Daily covered our case, Kohls v Ellison, defending free speech, and the state of Minnesota's AI expert, a Stanford professor, submitting AI-generated studies that don't exist.
The Volokh Conspiracy wrote about the recent fake AI-generated studies cited by the state of Minnesota's expert in our case, Kohls v Ellison.
Fox News covered HLLI's motion to exclude testimony from an “AI and misinformation” expert in Kohls v. Ellison.
Zero Hedge wrote about our free speech lawsuit, Kohls v. Ellison, where one of the state of Minnesota's experts cited an AI-generated study that does not exist.
Law & Crime reported on our case, Kohls v. Ellison, where the state of Minnesota's expert submitted evidence citing AI-generated studies that do not exist.
