Martinez, Roman

Roman Martinez

Partner

roman.martinez@lw.com
    Martinez, Roman

    Roman Martinez

    Partner

    roman.martinez@lw.com
    "Roman Martinez is fantastic."

    Chambers USA 2024

    Leading Lawyer ‒ Appellate: Supreme Courts (States & Federal)

    The Legal 500 US 2024

    "He takes complexities and draws out a broader theme that will engage the Court and get them to think about the broader issue."

    Chambers USA 2023

    "He has a tremendous command of the material and displays real confidence in oral argument."

    Chambers USA 2023

    "He's got a presence about him that is reassuring to clients and courts."

    Chambers USA 2023

    "He understands a case to its bones, is an effective verbal advocate and is quick on his feet."

    Chambers USA 2022

    "A highly valuable member of any team."

    Chambers USA 2022

    "Has quickly established himself as an impressive and highly sought-after choice for Supreme Court and wider appellate arguments."

    Chambers USA 2022

    Profile

    Roman Martinez, former Deputy Office Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C. office, represents clients in their highest-stakes appeals in the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as in federal and state appellate courts around the country.

    Roman handles civil and criminal matters involving a wide range of constitutional, statutory, and administrative law issues.

    Roman has argued 14 cases in the Supreme Court, including important cases in the fields of the First Amendment, administrative arbitration, copyright, patent law, criminal law, civil rights, employment, and civil and criminal procedure. In addition, he has argued dozens of appeals in the D.C., First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Federal Circuits, as well as in New York, California, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee appellate courts, among others. Roman also regularly participates in district court litigation raising complex questions of federal law.

    During the Supreme Court’s 2023 term, Roman secured a significant victory for one set of petitioners in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the Court overruled the Chevron deference doctrine. He regularly represents clients bringing constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges to unlawful agency action.

    In the 2022 Supreme Court term, Roman prevailed in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, in which the Court expanded legal protections for children with disabilities. His other recent victories in the Supreme Court include ZF Automotive v. Luxshare, in which the Supreme Court clarified that US courts lack authority to grant discovery for use in private commercial arbitrations conducted abroad, and Vega v. Tekoh, in which the Court clarified the scope of civil liability for violations of Miranda v. Arizona.

    In the 2020 Term, Roman was part of teams that successfully represented Facebook and the Government of Guam in unanimous Supreme Court victories under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Comprehensive Environmental, Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) statutes. In 2020, he successfully persuaded the Court to invalidate portions of TCPA under the First Amendment.

    Roman has prevailed in 20 of the last 22 cases he has argued to a decision in the federal courts of appeals. Over the past six years, Roman's appellate victories have included:

    • Thirteen victories in securities fraud cases, in the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits, including a 6-5 en banc victory upholding a forum-selection clause limiting derivative claims to Delaware court
    • Victory overturning a US$37 million adverse jury verdict based on asbestos-related product liability claims, in the New Jersey Appellate Division
    • Victories overturning a US$31 million adverse jury verdict based on fraud and contract claims, in Tennessee Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
    • Victory overturning a US$23 million adverse jury verdict based on a defamation claim arising from a shareholder proxy fight, in the Fourth Circuit
    • Victory in an antitrust class action alleging extraterritorial violations of the Sherman Act, in the Second Circuit
    • Victory overturning trial court’s rejection of L.A. County pension fund’s plenary authority to control personnel and administration under California Constitution;
    • En banc victory unanimously overturning (11-0) circuit precedent restricting veterans’ rights to challenge unlawful action by the Department of Veterans Affairs, in the Federal Circuit

    In 2016, Roman rejoined Latham after serving as an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the US Department of Justice. Earlier in his career, he served as a law clerk to Chief Justice John G. Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States and to then-Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit. 

    From 2002 to 2005, Roman served as an advisor on the Iraqi political and constitutional process, in various roles at the White House, at the US Embassy and Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, and at the US Department of Defense. He received the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Global War on Terrorism and the US Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Award for his service in Iraq.

    Roman serves on the US Chamber of Commerce’s Administrative Law & Government Litigation Advisory Committee, on the Advisory Council of the Federal Circuit, and the Federalist Society’s Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group. He previously served as a member of the D.C. Circuit’s Advisory Committee on Procedures and the US District Court for the District of Columbia’s Committee on Grievances. 

    Roman's commentary has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and other publications, and he has appeared on PBS NewsHour and other television programs to discuss the Supreme Court. 

    Experience

    Roman's representative experience includes:

    US Supreme Court

    • Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Sup. Ct. No. 22-1219 (Chevron deference) (argued)
    • Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, Sup. Ct. No. 21-887 (IDEA exhaustion provision) (argued)
    • Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, Sup. Ct. No. 21-869 (fair-use defense to copyright infringement) (argued)
    • ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., Sup. Ct. No. 21-401 (availability of discovery for use in foreign private commercial arbitrations) (argued)
    • Vega v. Tekoh, Sup. Ct. No. 21-499 (scope of Section 1983 liability) (argued)
    • Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Sup. Ct. No., 19-631 (2020) (First Amendment challenge to Telephone Consumer Protection Act (argued)
    • Babb v Wilkie, Sup. Ct. No. 18-882 (2020) (federal-sector age discrimination) (argued)
    • Guam v. United States, Sup. Ct. No. 20-382 (CERCLA statute of limitations) (briefed)
    • Facebook v. Duguid, Sup. Ct. No. 19-511 (scope of TCPA liability) (briefed)
    • Pivotal Software v. Tran, Sup. Ct. No. 20-1541 (applicability of PSLRA discovery stay to state-court securities actions) (briefed)
    • Independent School District No. 283 v. E.M.D.H. ex rel. L.H. and S.D., Sup. Ct. No. 20-905 (IDEA statute of limitations) (briefed)
    • Seldin v. Estate of Stanley C., Silverman, Sup. Ct. No. 20-895 (enforceability of arbitration awards) (briefed)
    • Vermont National Telephone Co. v. Vermont Dep’t of Taxation, Sup. Ct. No. 20-1159 (tax situs) (briefed)
    • Gray v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2764 (2019) (reviewability of agency action by Department of Veterans Affairs) (briefed)
    • Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sup. Ct. No. 19-1166 (2020) (Rule 19 joinder in APA actions) (briefed)
    • Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) (deference to agency interpretation of regulations) (amicus brief on behalf of National Organization of Veterans Advocates)
    • Connecticut v. Skakel, Sup. Ct. No. 180-185 (2019) (ineffective assistance of counsel) (briefed)
    • Provident Savings Bank, FSB v. McKeen-Chaplin, 138 S.Ct. 471 (2017) (Fair Labor Standards Act “administrative” exemption) (briefed)
    • Fry v. Napoleon County Schools, 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (exhaustion under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) (argued)*
    • Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) (Patent Act enhanced damages) (argued)*
    • Simmons v. Himmelreich, 136 S. Ct. 1843 (2016) (liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act) (argued)*
    • Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (2016) (criminal jury instructions and statute-of-limitations defenses) (argued)*
    • United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (equitable tolling of claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act) (argued)*
    • Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074 (2015) (Sarbanes-Oxley Act obstruction of justice provision) (argued)*
    • Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014) (Patent Act attorney fees) (argued)*
    • Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, S. Ct. No. 15-827 (substantive standard of liability under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) (briefed)*
    • Michigan v. EPA, 136 S. Ct. 2463 (2016) (Administrative Procedure Act challenge to regulatory action under the Clean Air Act) (briefed)*
    • United States v. Marlene June, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (equitable tolling of claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act) (briefed)*
    • West Virginia, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 136 S. Ct. 1000 (2016) (statutory and constitutional validity of Clean Power Plan (opposition to application for stay)*
    • Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014) (standard of appellate review for Patent Act attorney fees) (briefed)*
    • Moores v. Hildes, 135 S. Ct. 46 (2014) (Section 11 liability under Securities Act) (certiorari-stage amicus brief)*
    • Ridley School District v. M.R., J.R., as parents of E.R. 135 S. Ct. 2309 (2015) (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act “stay-put” provision) (certiorari-stage amicus brief)*
    • Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013) (Title VII retaliation) (briefed)

    Other Federal Court

    • Mollaei v. Otonomo Inc., 9th Cir. No. 23-16079 (privacy class action) (argued)
    • Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., 9th Cir. No. 23-55770 (arbitration agreement in antitrust class action) (argued)  
    • Bartling v. Apple Inc., 9th Cir. No. 22-16164 (consumer class action) (argued)
    • Home Depot USA v. NLRB, 8th Cir. No. 24-1406 (First Amendment & NLRA enforcement action) (to be argued)
    • Lawrence General Hospital v. Continental Casualty Co., 1st Cir. No. 23-1286 (COVID-related insurance coverage) (argued)
    • Grae v. Corrections Corp. of America, 6th Cir. No. 22-05312 (sealing of records in securities class action) (argued)
    • Fluor Corp. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 8th Cir. No. 21-3389 (insurance) (argued)
    • IAM Nat’l Pension Fund v. Farfetch, 2d Cir. No. 21-2752 (securities class action) (argued)
    • Home Depot U.S.A. v. Lafarge North Am., 3d Cir. No. 22-1122 (MDL procedure) (argued)
    • Lee v. Fisher, 9th Cir. No. 21-15923 (securities derivative action) (argued)
    • Roeder v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 2d Cir. No. 21-0552 (civil rights class action) (argued)
    • Salim v. Mobile TeleSystems PJSC, 2d Cir. No. 21-839 (securities class action) (argued)
    • In re Imerys Talc America, Inc., 3d Cir. No. 20-3485 (bankruptcy) (argued)
    • Birnbaum v. General Electric Co., 2d Cir. No. 20-01741 (securities class action) (argued)
    • Puma Biotechnology v. Eshelman, No. 20-1329 (4th Cir.) (defamation) (argued)
    • National Organization of Veterans Advocates v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Fed. Cir. No. 20-1321 (2020) (review of agency action by Dep’t of Veterans Affairs) (argued en banc)
    • Koshy v. Barbarosh, 788 Fed. Appx. 536 (9th Cir. 2019) (securities derivative suit) (briefed)
    • Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 932 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2019) (Rule 19 joinder) (briefed)
    • Wada v. United States, No. 19-2983 (2d Cir.) (criminal fraud) (to be argued)
    • South Carolina Retirement Systems Group Trust v. Eaton Corp. PLC, 791 Fed. Appx. 230 (2d Cir. 2019) (securities class action) (argued)
    • Biocad JSC v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, 942 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2019) (extraterritoriality of Sherman Act) (briefed)
    • Steamfitters Industry Pension Fund v. Endo International PLC, 771 Fed. Appx. 494 (2d Cir. 2019) (securities class action) (argued)
    • Graham v. Fearon, 721 Fed. Appx. 429 (6th Cir. 2018) (ERISA class action) (argued)
    • ABS Entertainment v. CBS Corporation, 908 F.3d 405 (9th Cir. 2018) (copyright) (amicus brief)
    • City of Almaty v. Khrapunov, 9th Cir. No. 15-56628 (forum non conveniens) (argued)
    • Gamero v. Koodo Sushi Corp., 752 Fed. Appx. 33 (2d Cir. 2018) (Fair Labor Standards Act) (briefed)
    • National Organization of Veterans Advocates v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 710 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (challenge to VA regulation) (argued)
    • Walgreen Co. v. Drug Enforcement Agency, D.C. Cir. No. 12-1397 (Administrative Procedure Act challenge to agency enforcement action) (briefed)

    State Appellate Court

    • Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Assoc. v. County of Los Angeles, No. B326977 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d App. Dist.) (California pension law) (argued)
    • Milan Supply Chain Solutions v. Navistar, No. W2018-00084-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. S. Ct. 2021) (affirming reversal of US$31 million fraud verdict) (argued)
    • Milan Supply Chain Solutions v. Navistar, 2019 WL 3812483 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (overturning US$31 million fraud verdict) (argued)
    • Lanzo v. Imerys Talc America, No. A-005711-17 (N.J. App. Div.) (overturning US$37 million product liability verdict) (argued)
    • Navistar v. Dutchmaid Logistics, Ohio Ct App. No. 2020 CA 0003 (fraud) (argued)
    • Mahar v. General Electric, N.Y. Supreme Ct. App. Div. No 2019-05203 (securities class action) (argued)
    • Martz v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 447 P.3d 1085 (Nevada Sup. Ct. 2019) (stay of securities class action (briefed)
    • Ramirez v. Bridgestone/ Firestone, Inc., 414 S.W. 3d 707 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (forum non conveniens) (argued)

    *Matter handled prior to joining Latham

    Qualifications

    Bar Qualification

    • District of Columbia
    • New York

    Education

    • JD, Yale Law School
    • M.Phil., Cambridge University
    • AB, Harvard College
      summa cum laude

    Practices

    Recognition

    Read More

    News & Insights

    Read More