Adjunct Professor of Law
Stephen B. Kinnaird is a partner at Paul Hastings and co-chair of its Appellate practice. He has represented clients in numerous cases in the United States Supreme Court, the federal courts of appeals and district courts, and state appellate courts. A highly experienced appellate lawyer, Mr. Kinnaird has handled matters involving energy, transportation, intellectual property, antitrust, environmental, telecommunications, administrative, criminal, and constitutional law. Specifically, Mr. Kinnaird has handled cases involving the Communications Act, the Interstate Commerce Act, the Federal Power Act, the Federal Railroad Safety Act, the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, the Social Security Act, the Sherman and Robinson-Patman Acts, the Lanham Act, the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, CERCLA, the Patent and Trademark Acts, ERISA, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, and the Civil Rights Act; the Commerce, Due Process, and Takings Clauses; and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Amendments. Mr. Kinnaird argued Padilla v. Kentucky in the United States Supreme Court in 2009. The Court ruled in favor of firm client Jose Padilla in holding that the Sixth Amendment imposed duties upon defense counsel to advise criminal defendants of the deportation consequences of criminal convictions. Mr. Kinnaird was featured on the cover of the July/August 2010 issue of The American Lawyer in a story discussing Padilla as the capstone of the firm's pro bono initiatives.
Other notable matters include:
- an energy company in the U.S. Supreme Court in a case establishing private rights to coal bed methane in homestead grants;
- a railroad in the U.S. Supreme Court in a case establishing preemption of state tort claims for inadequate warning devices;
- a major league baseball team in the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving taxation of back pay;
- a telecommunications company in the U.S. Supreme Court and the courts of appeals in cases establishing rules of competitive access to network facilities under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and rejecting takings and sovereign immunity defenses;
- a railroad in the U.S. Supreme Court in a case establishing the protections of limited liability clauses for inland carriers engaged in international cargo transportation;
- a tire manufacturer in the Ninth Circuit in a case involving the availability of preliminary injunctive relief in aid of arbitration;
- an information technology company in the Federal Circuit in cases involving patent infringement and the scope of authority of the International Trade Commission;
- a chemical company in the Fourth Circuit in a case involving relevant market definition under the Sherman Act; and
- veterans in the Federal Circuit in major cases involving veterans benefits laws.