HLLI joined the American Civil Rights Project and the Manhattan Institute to support Coalition for TJ's petition for certiorari challenging Fairfax County School Board's race-based admissions scheme as a violation of the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.
HLLI opposed a settlement that would deliver most of its promised relief to the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), a left-wing advocacy group, instead of class members. The district court agreed with HLLI and rejected the settlement.
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.
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…
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.
HLLI filed an amicus brief on behalf of 25 athletic officials and coaches for female athletes in support of a West Virginia law that makes all biological males, including those who self-identify as female, ineligible for participation on girls' sports teams.
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.
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.
HLLI submitted amicus briefs in opposition to the Biden administration’s illegal Student Loan Forgiveness program.
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.
