Kendyl Barnholtz

Associate

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.

Before joining Crowell, Kendyl gained valuable experience externing at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, serving as a law clerk at the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, and externing for the Honorable R. Gary Klausner in the Central District of California.  

While earning her J.D. from Loyola Law School, Kendyl served as the chief note and comment editor for the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. She received her B.A. in political science from UCLA.

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
      Chief Note and Comment Editor, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 2023–2024
    • University of California, Los Angeles, B.A., 2019
    • California
    • 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....

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....