Kevin P. Martin

Mr. Martin’s appellate experience includes eight 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. He is counsel of record in pending appeals in the Massachusetts state courts involving questions of breach of contract law and whistleblower retaliation law.

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  interlocutory appeal challenging a preliminary injunction barring the sale of a generic version of a $1 billion per year drug, a successful defense of a judgment of non-infringement in a patent case, and a successful defense of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a partnership dipute. 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. 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. Mr. Martin is lead counsel representing generic drug companies in challenging the Internal Revenue Service's tax treatment of Hatch-Waxman litigation costs in a series of actions in the Court of Federal Claims and in the Tax Court. Mr. Martin represented the MBTA in a 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. He also frequently represents clients in the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court.

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.  Since 2013, he has led challenges brought under the First Amendment’s Free Speech clause to bans on charitable solicitation in public enacted by cities throughout the country, resulting in a trial victory, four 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.