Kendyl Barnholtz
Overview
Kendyl Barnholtz is an associate in Crowell’s Litigation and Antitrust groups, where she supports all stages of litigation and represents clients across a variety of industries.
Career & Education
- LMU Loyola Law School, J.D., 2024
Chief Note and Comment Editor, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 2023–2024 - University of California, Los Angeles, B.A., 2019
- LMU Loyola Law School, J.D., 2024
- California
Kendyl's Insights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.14.25
Trump v. Casa: Nationwide Injunctions And The Class Action Loophole
On June 27, in Trump v. Casa, the Supreme Court held that federal courts lack equitable authority to issue “nationwide”—or, using the Court’s preferred parlance, “universal”—injunctions. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Barrett explained that whether Congress vested the judiciary with such power depends on the existence of a founding-era antecedent to the practice of universal injunctions. Finding none, the Court held that universal injunctions fall outside a federal court’s equitable authority.
Blog Post | 05.07.25
Blog Post | 04.22.25
Rail Derailment Trial Update: GATX and OxyVinyls Say “Case Closed”
Insights
The Notorious C.E.C.—An Analysis of California Evidence Code Section 352.2
|01.27.25
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
Senate Committee Holds Confirmation Hearing for FRA Administrator Nominee David Fink
|05.20.25
Crowell & Moring’s Transportation Law: Moving Forward
Rail Derailment Trial Update: Jury Finds GATX Not Liable
|05.07.25
Crowell & Moring’s Transportation Law: Moving Forward
Rail Derailment Trial Update: GATX and OxyVinyls Say “Case Closed”
|04.22.25
Crowell & Moring’s Transportation Law: Moving Forward
Rail Derailment Trial Kicks Off: Who Pays For East Palestine?
|04.17.25
Crowell & Moring’s Transportation Law: Moving Forward
Kendyl's Insights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.14.25
Trump v. Casa: Nationwide Injunctions And The Class Action Loophole
On June 27, in Trump v. Casa, the Supreme Court held that federal courts lack equitable authority to issue “nationwide”—or, using the Court’s preferred parlance, “universal”—injunctions. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Barrett explained that whether Congress vested the judiciary with such power depends on the existence of a founding-era antecedent to the practice of universal injunctions. Finding none, the Court held that universal injunctions fall outside a federal court’s equitable authority.
Blog Post | 05.07.25
Blog Post | 04.22.25
Rail Derailment Trial Update: GATX and OxyVinyls Say “Case Closed”
