Anna W. St. John

Of Counsel

New Orleans, Louisiana

+1 917 327 2392

Education

Louisiana State University, B.A., magna cum laude, 2001

Columbia Law School, J.D., James Kent Scholar, 2006

Admissions

New York

Washington, DC

Louisiana

Background

Anna St. John is an experienced litigated whose work focuses on protecting consumers, fighting federal overreach, and protecting Americans from violations of their constitutional rights. As a result of her efforts, over $100 million has been returned to consumers and shareholders.

Anna currently serves as president and general counsel of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute (HLLI), where her litigation portfolio includes protection of free speech, religious liberty, and women’s sports programs, as well as multiple cases against federal regulatory overreach and class action abuse.

Anna’s litigation experience includes complex commercial, contract, and insurance coverage disputes. She has served as trial counsel, argued before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits, two state appellate courts, and numerous federal district courts. Anna has also represented corporate and individual clients in criminal investigations alleging antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, and financial reporting irregularities.

Anna began her legal career as a litigator in the Washington, DC, office of Covington & Burling LLP. She also served as a law clerk for the Hon. Rhesa H. Barksdale of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

* Anna St. John is of counsel to St. John LLC. Her practice is through a separate entity.

Representative Matters

Class Actions and Consumer Protection Matters

  • Successfully objected to excessive attorneys’ fees and inadequate representation by class counsel, resulting in an additional $100 million being distributed to the shareholder class. In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, 317 F. Supp. 3d 858 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (argued).

  • Improved class members’ recovery by millions of dollars after challenging approval of a class-action settlement that provided $0 to class members, but divided $8.5 million between the plaintiffs’ lawyers and cy pres recipients—third party charities selected in part by the defendant and which included class counsel’s alma maters and organizations that the defendant already supported through donations. Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019).

  • Obtained an 8-figure recovery for a corporate plaintiff in a lawsuit against its comprehensive general liability and umbrella insurers from the 1950s to 1970s for remediation and defense costs associated with groundwater contamination from a former manufacturing facility.

  • Successfully appealed the denial of a shareholder’s motion to intervene to challenge a settlement in a merger “strike suit” filed for the sole purpose of eliciting attorneys’ fees. Alcarez v. Akorn, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9070 (7th Cir. Apr. 15, 2024) (argued).

  • Successfully represented a class member in objecting to a class-action settlement that treated class members unfairly and unequally as between residents of different states in violation of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23, leading to improved recovery for the consumer class. Rodriguez v. It’s Just Lunch International, No. 07-cv-9227 (S.D.N.Y.) (argued).

  • Represented a class member in successfully objecting to a class-action settlement that would have paid millions in attorneys’ fees based on an illusory recovery amount that class members never received rather than the actual recovery, setting an important precedent to protect against abusive settlements and fee requests in future cases. Hesse v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00972 (S.D.N.Y.) (argued).

Administrative Procedure Act and Constitutional Challenges

  • Challenged the ATF’s Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 28,968 (Apr. 19, 2024), by which the ATF claimed the power to regulate citizens’ local sales of even a single firearm, on behalf of a private plaintiff as part of a coalition of State Attorneys General, individuals, and an organization. Kansas v. Garland, No. 2:24-cv-88 (E.D. Ark.), No. 6:24-cv-01086 (D. Kan.).

  • Challenged the Department of Labor’s Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights, 87 F.R. 73,822 (Dec. 1, 2022), which introduces ESG factors into the management of ERISA plan assets, on behalf of private plaintiffs as part of a coalition of State Attorneys General, individuals, and industry groups. Utah v. Su, No. 2:23-cv-00016 (N.D. Tex.), appeal pending, No. 23-11097 (5th Cir.).

  • Fought 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 by filing an amicus brief opposing EPA’s attempt to prevent the State of Louisiana from challenging its regulatory overreach. Louisiana v. EPA, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12124 (W.D. La. Jan. 23, 2024).     

  • Filed an amicus brief on behalf of Western counties to preliminarily and permanently enjoin a Presidentially-ordered indefinite “pause” of oil and gas leasing in federal waters, including Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 257. Louisiana v. Biden, 543 F. Supp. 3d 388 (W.D. La. 2021).

  • Advocated 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. Meland v. Weber, 2 F.4th 838 (9th Cir. 2021).