Kevin P. Martin

Mr. Martin’s appellate experience includes seven arguments before the Massachusetts SJC concerning a wide variety of issues. He successfully argued at the SJC on behalf of a group of business and public policy groups challenging a proposal to amend the Massachusetts constitution to impose a $2 billion per year graduated income tax for the first time in the state’s history; on behalf of a major national university in a wrongful death case concerning the circumstances under which universities are responsible for student suicides; and on behalf of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in a case concerning whether government agencies may terminate contracts “for convenience” to reduce costs. Mr. Martin’s earlier arguments before the SJC included a challenge to the state’s taxation of trusts administered by an out-of-state national bank, and a case involving the application of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to agreements for the purchase and sale of illiquid investments.

Mr. Martin also has argued many cases in the federal Courts of Appeals, especially the Federal Circuit and the First Circuit. His recent Federal Circuit arguments include a successful appeal challenging a preliminary injunction barring sale of the generic version of a $1 billion per year drug, and an appeal on behalf of a technology company in a case presenting novel appellate jurisdictional issues under the America Invents Act. He successfully argued before the First and D.C. Circuits on behalf of a nuclear power company in defense of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s issuance of operating licenses to two nuclear power plants, defeating challenges to the licenses brought by the state governments in which the plants are located. He is counsel of record in pending appeals in the Federal Circuit and Massachusetts state courts involving questions of patent validity and infringement; partnership law; breach of contract law; and whistleblower retaliation law. Mr. Martin also has briefed numerous merits cases before the United States Supreme Court, on issues ranging from the Clean Water Act to federal consumer protection laws.

In addition to his appellate practice, Mr. Martin regularly represents clients in federal and state trial courts and before administrative agencies, particularly in matters raising questions of constitutional and administrative law, as well as breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation claims. Recently, Mr. Martin represented the MBTA in a federal district court challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute governing cost sharing between the MBTA and Amtrak, and in related proceedings before the federal Surface Transportation Board. He represented a nuclear power company in a multi-year series of administrative trials before New York State environmental regulators, concerning the company’s application for a water quality certification and pollution discharge permit under the federal Clean Water Act and related state laws. Mr. Martin also recently represented a national mining company in submitting comments to the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to a proposed rule requiring mining companies to post billions of dollars in financial assurance under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

Mr. Martin has an active public interest and pro bono practice. From 2010-2011, Mr. Martin served as Deputy Independent Counsel representing the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in an internal investigation into corruption in the state probation department, resulting in the resignation and criminal conviction of members of the department’s senior leadership. Mr. Martin helped spearhead a challenge brought by school children to the Massachusetts cap on charter school enrollment, arguing the matter before the SJC.  He also has led challenges brought under the First Amendment’s Free Speech clause to bans on charitable solicitation in public throughout the country, resulting in a trial victory, three summary judgment victories, and victories in two matters argued to the First Circuit. He regularly counsels and represents religious and educational entities on matters involving the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause.