Biden v. Nebraska
HLLI submitted amicus briefs in opposition to the Biden administration’s illegal Student Loan Forgiveness program.
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.
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.
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.
Louisiana v. Biden
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.
Green v. Miss USA
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.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
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.
SFFA v. Harvard
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.
Meland v. Padilla
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.
Photo credit: Fuelrefuel
In re: NFL Players’ Concussion Injury Litigation
CCAF filed an amicus brief in support of objectors who received an inexplicably small fee award after their work benefit the class by over $100 million. On May 7, 2020 these objectors prevailed; the Third Circuit remanded with instructions for the district court to explain how it arrived at its low fee award.
