Faoro v. Jewish Voice for Peace Inc., et al.
HLLI represents a victim of the February 1, 2024 pro-Hamas blockade of several intersections leading into Washington, D.C. during the morning rush hour.
National Association of Scholars v. DOE
HLLI represent the National Association of Scholars, who challenge the U.S. Department of Energy’s requirement that researchers submit a DEI statement with applications for research grants.
Kansas, et al. v. Becerra (CMS staffing rule challenge)
HLLI suit challenging the legality of a federal regulation by CMS that threatens the health, safety, and well-being of millions of nursing home patients, by requiring nursing homes to hire more than 100,000 additional full-time employees, while providing no funding to support the necessary hires.
Kohls v. Ellison
HLLI filed a second lawsuit on behalf of AI-generated political satire, joined the by Upper Midwest Law Center, representing plaintiffs “Mr Reagan,” a political creator, and state Rep. Mary Franson challenging Minnesota Statutes § 609.771.
Kohls v. Bonta
HLLI filed a lawsuit on behalf of Christopher Kohls, known as “Mr Reagan,” the creator satirical political videos, including one called out by Gov. Gavin Newsom as being “illegal” under the bills he signed on September 17, 2024.
Manhart v. National Students for Justice in Palestine, et al.
HLLI filed suit to defend the rights of citizens unlawfully impeded by anti-Israel, pro-Gaza groups engaging in illegal acts of obstruction, which blockaded the main entrance into O’Hare International Airport in Chicago on April 15, 2024.
Leroy v. Livingston Manor School District
HLLI filed an appeal over a school district's unconstitutional punishment of a high school student for his social media post.
Kansas, Journey, et al. v. Garland et al. (ATF rule challenge)
On behalf of a firearms collector and hobbyist, HLLI filed a lawsuit over the Biden Administration's new rule that restricts gun sales between private citizens.
In re Google Location History Litigation
HLLI represents objectors challenging a cy pres settlement that pays $0 to the class but $62 million for attorneys' fees and to third-party organizations, many of which have pre-existing relationships with Google or the attorneys.
In re JUUL Labs, Inc. Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation
HLLI represents an objector challenging the fairness of a settlement that pays class counsel $76,500,000 in attorneys’ fees, and deducts $5 million more in expenses and service awards, well above the standard 25% benchmark, and much higher than the 15-20% expected in a settlement of this size.
