Photo of Kim Rinehart

Kim focuses on class action defense, professional liability matters, complex commercial disputes, appeals and health care litigation. She is passionate about learning the intricacies of her clients’ businesses, crafting novel legal arguments, and devising creative litigation strategies. Her goal: an effective and efficient approach tailored to the unique needs of each case.  

As we promised last week, we’re back with the final bit of mop up from the exciting end of the 2017–18 term. And we’ve saved some of the best (or maybe the worst) for last with three significant, much-awaited 5-4 decisions.

First up, in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (16-1466), the Court (finally) overruled Abood v. Detroit Board of
Read More Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (16-1466), National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (16-1140), Ohio v. American Express Co. (16-1454)

As the rest of the world grapples with their hopes, dreams, or fears of a post-AMK Court, we’re still grappling with the final decisions of the Court he leaves behind. In this Update, we bring you summaries of Abbot v. Perez (No. 17-586), Currier v. Virginia (No. 16-1348), and Florida v. Georgia (No. 142, Orig.) Let’s hit it!

In Abbot v. Perez (No.

Read More Abbot v. Perez (17-586), Currier v. Virginia (16-1348), Florida v. Georgia (142, Orig.)

OT17 came to a close this morning, and—as is generally the case—the Court saved its most controversial decisions for last. Yesterday morning (as you just might have heard by now), the Court upheld the Trump administration’s so-called Travel Ban, holding in Trump v. Hawaii (No. 17-965) that the proclamation is a lawful exercise of the broad discretion granted the President under the Immigration and Nationality

Read More Ortiz v. United States (16-1423)

As the President of the United States announced yesterday, in his sixteenth tweet of the day (out of twenty-five), “SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!” Specifically, in Trump v. Hawaii (No. 17-965), the Court held that Proclamation No. 9645—the third iteration of what is generally known as the “Travel Ban”—is a lawful exercise of the broad discretion granted the President under the Immigration

Read More Trump v. Hawaii (17-965)

Today was the last scheduled date of OT18, but The Nine still have more work to do. The Court handed down two big decisions today—Abbot v. Perez (No. 17-586), upholding all but one challenged TX congressional district against a racial-gerrymandering challenge; and Ohio v. American Express (No. 16-1454), holding that Amex’s antisteering provisions (which prohibit merchants from “steering” customers to use other
Read More Carpenter v. United States (16-402), Pereira v. Sessions (17-459), WesternGeco, LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. (16-1011)

We’re getting there. Four more decisions this morning, including one of the A-list blockbusters of the term, Carpenter v. United States (No. 16-402), in which the Court limited the “third-party records” doctrine and held that the Government’s acquisition of cell-site records from wireless carriers is a search under the Fourth Amendment. The decision, to paraphrase Joe Biden, is a big . . . deal.
Read More South Dakota v. Wayfair (17-494), Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission (17-130), Wisconsin Central v. United States (17-530)