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.
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.
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.
HLLI filed an amicus brief on behalf of counties in Utah and Colorado in support of a motion by Louisiana and twelve other States seeking to preliminarily enjoin the federal government's unlawful moratorium on oil and gas leasing on federal lands and offshore waters. The Fifth Circuit agreed with HLLI.
HLLI filed an amicus brief for Pinnacle Peak Pictures in support of the First Amendment free association rights of Miss USA. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the amicus that the First Amendment guarantees the right to produce content consistent with their beliefs.
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.
Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute filed an amicus brief in favor of granting certiorari. Its brief noted that Grutter, though expressly limited to higher-education admissions, has had pernicious effects rationalizing racial discrimination in the name of “diversity” in fields well beyond higher-education admissions.
HLLI filed an amicus brief in support of a shareholder challenging California's discriminatory quota requiring the election of a minimum number of women to the boards of directors of publicly-traded companies.
