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.

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

Mr. Martinez 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. 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. Mr. Martinez also regularly participates in district court litigation raising complex questions of federal law.

During the Court's 2023 term, Mr. Martinez secured a significant victory for the petitioners in Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, resulting in the overruling of the Chevron deference doctrine. In the 2022 term, Mr. Martinez 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, Mr. Martinez 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.

Since November 2018, Mr. Martinez has persuaded the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in 10 cases. Over the past six years, Mr. Martinez’s other victories have included:

  • Ten victories in securities class actions or derivative lawsuits, in the Second, 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
  • 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, Mr. Martinez 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, Mr. Martinez 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.

Mr. Martinez 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. 

Mr. Martinez’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.

Mr. Martinez’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

  • Giraldi v. Apple Inc., 9th Cir. No. 22-16164 (consumer class action) (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)
  • 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

  • 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

Bar Qualification

  • District of Columbia
  • New York


  • JD, Yale Law School
  • M.Phil., Cambridge University
  • AB, Harvard College
    summa cum laude
December 19, 2023 Recognition

Latham’s Pro Bono Work Highlighted by Bloomberg Law

The firm was recognized as a Pro Bono Innovator for its dedication to pro bono work, including our Supreme Court victory in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools and support of Afghan asylees.