HLLI fought back against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to enforce its Title VI regulation as a catch-all, all-purpose disparate-impact regulation in the face of legal precedent foreclosing EPA’s novel interpretation. The court enjoined enforcement of the new interpretation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A double billing error discovered by the Boston Globe and Ted Frank evolves into one of the most in-depth inquiries into securities suit billing. An appointed special master discovered undisclosed payment to attorneys who did no work in case, but plaintiffs' counsel tries to retain their $75 million fee. HLLI successfully argued for a reduced fee and defended the fee award on appeal as an amicus.
