Trending
CNN Town Hall Reminds Us that Harris Would be a Cautious, Pragmatic, and Boring President. That’s Why Americans Should Vote for Her
CNN Town Hall Reminds Us that Harris Would be a Cautious, Pragmatic, and Boring President. That’s Why Americans Should Vote for Her
By
Analysis of the Fifth Circuit’s Ruling in Republican National Committee v. Wetzel, Involving the Counting of Ballots That Are Postmarked Before Election Day but that Arrive to Election Offices A Few Days After Polls Close
Analysis of the Fifth Circuit’s Ruling in Republican National Committee v. Wetzel, Involving the Counting of Ballots That Are Postmarked Before Election Day but that Arrive to Election Offices A Few Days After Polls Close
By and
How Harris Can Use Biden’s Latest Gaffe to Her Advantage and Deliver an Invaluable Civics Lesson
How Harris Can Use Biden’s Latest Gaffe to Her Advantage and Deliver an Invaluable Civics Lesson
By
Rex Heinke
Rex Heinke

Rex Heinke is a highly accomplished appellate practitioner with the California Appellate Law Group. He has argued more than 150 appeals in federal and state courts across the country. Between 2001 and 2020, Rex was co-head of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld’s Supreme Court and Appellate practice.

Rex has extensive experience before the California Supreme Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as other federal and state appellate courts. He is leader in First Amendment, intellectual property, entertainment, media, and Internet-related appellate litigation, and is the author of BNA’s treatise on Media Law.

Rex received his law degree from Columbia Law School and his undergraduate degree from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, where he was the student body president and an anti-apartheid activist. He clerked after law school for the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Columns by Rex Heinke
Permalink to Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta: A Temporary Reprieve for California AB 51, Which Prohibits Conditioning Employment on the Waiver of the Right To Litigate?Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta: A Temporary Reprieve for California AB 51, Which Prohibits Conditioning Employment on the Waiver of the Right To Litigate?
Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta: A Temporary Reprieve for California AB 51, Which Prohibits Conditioning Employment on the Waiver of the Right To Litigate?
, and

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and appellate lawyers Rex Heinke and Susan Yorke discuss a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which the appellate court reinstated California AB 51, which prohibits employers from conditioning employment on an applicant’s waiver of various rights, including the right to litigate. The authors note that the ruling creates a circuit split and may even be at odds with recent Supreme Court case law.

Permalink to Supreme Court to Decide if International Commercial Arbitrations Are “Foreign or International Tribunals” to Whom U.S. Federal Courts Can Provide Discovery AssistanceSupreme Court to Decide if International Commercial Arbitrations Are “Foreign or International Tribunals” to Whom U.S. Federal Courts Can Provide Discovery Assistance
Supreme Court to Decide if International Commercial Arbitrations Are “Foreign or International Tribunals” to Whom U.S. Federal Courts Can Provide Discovery Assistance
, and

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and appellate lawyers Rex Heinke and Jessica Weisel comment on a case the U.S. Supreme Court will hear next term that presents the question what role, if any, federal courts should play in facilitating discovery in foreign arbitrations. The authors argue that while the case seems to turn on a simple matter of statutory interpretation, the case may shed new light on how the current Court approaches traditional interpretive tools.

Permalink to Are Rideshare Drivers Like Uber’s and Lyft’s Subject to the Federal Arbitration Act?Are Rideshare Drivers Like Uber’s and Lyft’s Subject to the Federal Arbitration Act?
Are Rideshare Drivers Like Uber’s and Lyft’s Subject to the Federal Arbitration Act?
, and

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and appellate lawyers Rex Heinke and Jessica Weisel describe the uncertainty surrounding whether Uber and Lyft drivers are subject to the Federal Arbitration Act. The authors note the split of authority across the nation and note that, depending on the outcome of litigation in the Second, Third, and Eleventh Circuits, the question may soon come before the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve.