Two logos side by side with Critical Legal Content in a red square on the left and HB Litigation in blue on the right

Montana Court Awards $2.9 Million in Fees to Youth Climate Plaintiffs After Landmark Constitutional Win

November 16th, 2025|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, Environmental Torts, HB Tort Notes, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , |

A Montana District Court has awarded nearly $3 million in fees and costs to youth plaintiffs after their landmark constitutional victory recognizing a right to a stable climate system. The ruling highlights the societal importance of the case, the inequity of resources between the parties, and the critical role of private enforcement in protecting environmental rights. Learn more in the full article.

Read More

Federal court rejects First Amendment defense in chatbot wrongful death case

June 26th, 2025|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

As generative AI tools grow more sophisticated—and more personal—the legal system is being forced to confront their potential harms. Guest contributor Justin Ward explores a chilling case against Character AI, where the mother of a teenage user is suing the company after her son took his own life. The boy had become fixated on an AI-generated version of a Game of Thrones character. In a significant ruling, a federal judge refused to dismiss the case on First Amendment grounds, challenging assumptions about whether AI output qualifies as protected speech—and raising urgent questions about AI accountability, user vulnerability, and the boundaries of tech company liability.

Read More

AI tool that summarizes evidence from cracked phones wades into uncharted constitutional waters

April 10th, 2025|Categories: Corporate Compliance, HB Tort Notes, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

As law enforcement agencies adopt cutting-edge AI to process digital evidence, constitutional questions are quickly coming into focus. Guest contributor Justin Ward explores how Cellebrite’s new AI-driven tool—capable of scanning and summarizing entire phone contents—may clash with Fourth Amendment protections. While the tech promises efficiency, civil rights advocates argue it opens the door to warrantless digital dragnets, with court interpretations varying widely across jurisdictions.

Read More

Injunction against Trump’s DEI executive orders unlikely to stem massive wave of ‘reverse discrimination’ lawsuits

March 18th, 2025|Categories: Corporate Compliance, Employment, HB Tort Notes, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

Justin Ward examines the recent federal court injunction against President Trump’s executive orders targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. While the ruling temporarily halts enforcement of these orders, legal experts suggest it’s unlikely to slow the growing wave of “reverse discrimination” lawsuits. Since the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard, more than 100 claims alleging discrimination against majority groups have been filed. Additionally, state legislation and an upcoming Supreme Court case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, could further lower the bar for such claims, potentially fueling even more litigation.

Read More

22 States Sue New York Over Climate Fund, Calling It an ‘Unconstitutional Shakedown’

March 3rd, 2025|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, Environmental Torts, HB Tort Notes, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , |

Tim Zyla examines the high-stakes legal battle between New York and a coalition of 22 states, led by West Virginia, over the state’s newly enacted Climate Change Superfund Act. The law requires energy producers to pay $75 billion over 25 years to fund climate damage recovery efforts. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, argues that New York’s law is unconstitutional, overreaches state authority, and unfairly targets out-of-state energy companies. Plaintiffs claim the Act violates multiple constitutional provisions, including the Commerce Clause, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses, as well as federal environmental law. Meanwhile, a pro se West Virginia resident has filed a motion to dismiss the case, defending New York’s actions as necessary for public health and climate accountability. Zyla highlights how this case could set a major precedent for state-level climate initiatives and corporate liability for environmental damage.

Read More

California’s climate disclosure laws withstand initial US Chamber of Commerce challenge

February 20th, 2025|Categories: Corporate Compliance, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Environmental Torts, HB Tort Notes, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , |

California’s groundbreaking climate disclosure laws just overcame a major legal challenge—what does this mean for businesses and the future of corporate transparency? Writer Justin Ward will fill you in.

Read More

The Blueprint for an “AI Bill of Rights”

June 22nd, 2023|Categories: Corporate Compliance, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

Authors Peter Schildkraut is a co-leader of the firm's Technology, Media & Telecommunications industry team and provides strategic counsel on artificial intelligence, spectrum use, broadband, and other TMT regulatory matters. Mr. Schildkraut helps clients navigate the ever-changing opportunities and challenges of technology, policy, and law to achieve their business objectives at the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and elsewhere. He is the author of "AI Regulation: What You Need To Know To Stay Ahead of the Curve. James W. Kim is a nationally recognized expert in procurement law that regularly advises companies that do business with the US government, with a focus on professional services organizations and the life sciences industry. He is a regular speaker and author on procurement and drug pricing matters and his work is regularly featured in nationally-distributed industry print and digital media. Mr. Kim provides clients with strategic counsel related to US government funding and US market access, including assistance with more than $5 billion in procurement and grant awards and regulatory counsel related to more than $40 billion in successful M&A transactions. Marne Marotta works with clients facing complex challenges to develop and implement dynamic government relations strategies. Drawing from her experience in the Senate and the executive branch, she provides clients with strategic guidance and counseling, devises and implements comprehensive advocacy campaigns, [...]

Read More

Unarmed or Unwell: How Federal Law Infringes Medical Marijuana Users’ Second Amendment Rights

June 14th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, Employment, Journal, New Featured Post for Home Page|Tags: , , , |

The Author Griffen Thorne (griffen@harrisbricken.com) is an attorney in the Los Angeles office of Harris Bricken Sliwoski LLP, an international emerging markets law firm. He represents clients in highly regulated emerging industries, such as cannabis, in corporate and commercial transactions. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Unarmed or Unwell: How Federal Law Infringes Medical Marijuana Users’ Second Amendment Rights As Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted while on the Seventh Circuit, “legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous.” In the coming years, the government’s ability to write off all medical marijuana users as dangerous is likely to be curtailed, even if the Controlled Substances Act continues to make marijuana use a federal crime. Abstract: In the wake of the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, federal courts have reached opposite outcomes on whether federal prohibitions on marijuana users’ rights to own or possess firearms are constitutional. As a result, there is a high likelihood of a circuit split that results in the overturning of those federal laws. The author [...]

Read More

European Court of Human Rights to Hear Case on Climate Change by Victoria Kline

April 7th, 2023|Categories: Environmental Torts, HB Risk Notes|Tags: , , , |

Guest Writer Victoria is a third-year student at the University of Miami School of Law, Juris Doctorate Candidate 2023, Law Review Staff Editor, and soon-to-be associate at Jones Day. European Court of Human Rights to Hear Case on Climate Change By Victoria Kline The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is hearing a landmark case brought forward by the Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland, who are suing the Swiss government (the “State”) for human rights violations related to climate change. Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland (“KlimaSeniorinnen”) is one of the first climate change matters the court has taken up. On Wednesday, March 29, 2023, the ECHR held a public hearing. History of the Case KlimaSeniorinnen began back in 2016, ignited by a group of women called KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, the Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland. The group filed suit in Swiss court against a variety of Swiss federal government bodies alleging violations of obligations set forth in the Swiss Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (the “Convention”).  The heart of the suit is the State’s shortcomings in progress being made towards the adopted Paris Agreement’s goal to keep “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.” The elderly plaintiffs purport that their demographic is especially [...]

Read More

Litigation’s Role in Gun Safety Advocacy: An Interview With Adam Skaggs of Giffords

October 14th, 2022|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, News|Tags: , , , , |

Read the article We’re closing in on 400 million guns in America, weapons that have been used to kill 1.5 million Americans between 1968 and 2017. Can litigation be an effective tool in curbing this loss of life? In 2020 alone there were more than 45,000 gun deaths. The beyond tragic and senseless mass shootings at schools has become all too routine. Most Americans want stricter gun laws which they believe will reduce the senseless killing in our country, which leads the world in both the number of privately owned firearms and gun-related deaths. The Supreme Court, of course, didn't take public opinion into account when it struck down a more than century old New York City ban on concealed firearms. Politicians do, however, pay close attention to polls. At the federal level, President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan law designed to make Americans safer in our gun-toting nation. Hailed as a "great start" and a rare but welcome exercise in reaching across the aisle, the law will result in safer citizens, but didn't include much of what gun advocates say is really needed to effect meaningful change. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a new law that gives citizens incentives to pursue gun manufacturers and dealers who sell illegal firearms. In New York, Democratic leaders, undaunted by the [...]

Read More

Litigation’s Role in Gun Safety Advocacy with Adam Skaggs

August 3rd, 2022|Categories: Class Actions, ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Mass Torts, News|Tags: , , , , |

We’re closing in on 400 million guns in America, weapons that have been used to kill 1.5 million Americans between 1968 and 2017. Can litigation be an effective tool in curbing this loss of life? In 2020 alone there were more than 45,000 gun deaths. The beyond tragic and senseless mass shootings at schools has become all too routine. Most Americans want stricter gun laws which they believe will reduce the senseless killing in our country, which leads the world in both the number of privately owned firearms and gun-related deaths. The Supreme Court, of course, didn't take public opinion into account when it struck down a more than century old New York City ban on concealed firearms. Politicians do, however, pay close attention to polls. At the federal level, President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan law designed to make Americans safer in our gun-toting nation. Hailed as a "great start" and a rare but welcome exercise in reaching across the aisle, the law will result in safer citizens, but didn't include much of what gun advocates say is really needed to effect meaningful change. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a new law that gives citizens incentives to pursue gun manufacturers and dealers who sell illegal firearms. In New York, Democratic leaders, undaunted by the Supreme Court, have pushed through [...]

Read More
Go to Top