Amicus Briefs

CFPB v. Townstone Financial

HLLI’s Seventh Circuit amicus brief asserts that CFPB’s application of Regulation B and ECOA violates the First Amendment because it stifles free expression and facilitates viewpoint discrimination. The complaint below represents an effort by CFPB to strong-arm “inclusive” social policy rather than root out invidious discrimination, which was Congress’s intent when it passed ECOA.

<em>CFPB v. Townstone Financial</em>
Regulations book. Law, rules and regulations concept. 3d illustration

Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District

Docket number: 23-1374 (8th Cir.) The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute filed an amicus brief in support of two Missouri public school employees, Brooke Henderson and Jennifer Lumley. Henderson and Lumley allege that school officials conducting a mandatory diversity training violated the First Amendment by forcing the two to confess their privilege and commit themselves to anti-racist advocacy. The district court not only ruled against the plaintiffs, it ordered them to pay the…

<em>Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District</em>

Sweet v. Cardona

HLLI filed a brief of amici curiae on behalf of 3 intervenor colleges appealing the district court’s approval of a collusive class action settlement that skirts statutory limits to achieve Biden administration goals concerning student debt relief.

<em>Sweet v. Cardona</em>

Mario Cerame, et al. v. Michael Bowler, in his official capacity as Connecticut Statewide Bar Counsel, et al.

The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute filed an amicus brief in support of two Connecticut attorneys, Mario Cerame and Timothy Moynahan, challenging a newly-adopted Connecticut rule that would prohibit attorneys from engaging in “derogatory or demeaning” speech or speech that “manifests bias or prejudice” with respect to certain protected characteristics. 

<em>Mario Cerame, et al. v. Michael Bowler, in his official capacity as Connecticut Statewide Bar Counsel, et al.</em>
Ingram Publishing / Alamy Stock Photo

Stanikzy v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co.

The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness submitted an amicus brief in support of affirming a district court’s fee order because increasing the attorneys’ fee award would not benefit class members—in fact, it would cost them over a half million dollars—and it would create perverse incentives for other attorneys to earmark their fee requests to the detriment of absent class members.

<em>Stanikzy v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co.</em>

Biden v. Nebraska

HLLI submitted amicus briefs in opposition to the Biden administration’s illegal Student Loan Forgiveness program.

<em>Biden v. Nebraska</em>
Piggy Bank

McKnight v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.

At the request of the court, HLLI submitted an amicus brief as to the question of whether Rule 23(e)(5)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies to an objection to Class Counsel’s fee request or to an appeal of the amount of attorney’s fees only. After briefing from CCAF and the other amici that the Rule did indeed apply, the Court denied the motion for fees.

<em>McKnight v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.</em>

A.M. v. Indianapolis Public Schools

An HLLI amicus brief on behalf of Concerned Women for America and Women's Liberation Front details how single-sex sports are necessary to provide equal opportunities for and treatment of women and Title IX is specifically intended to achieve this goal.

<em>A.M. v. Indianapolis Public Schools</em>

Romeril v. SEC

HLLI, joining with the Cato Institute, filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant review of a case where the lower court would compel a web designer to create sites conveying messages that she opposes, and did so by creating a troubling “monopoly” rationale that has no support in First Amendment law or reality.

<em>Romeril v. SEC</em>
Search this website Type then hit enter to search