Tracy A. Roman

Partner

Overview

Tracy A. Roman is a partner in Crowell & Moring's Washington, D.C. office and is a member of the firm's Litigation Group Steering Committee.

Tracy has extensive experience litigating a wide range of matters in federal and state courts across the country. Her practice includes defending clients in numerous industries in class actions, with a focus on multidistrict litigations. Her recent experience includes representing healthcare companies in class actions across the country, including the In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust multidistrict litigation currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the In re Managed Care multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Miami, and eating disorder class actions brought against a behavioral health company in federal court in New Jersey.

Tracy also has significant experience litigating consumer and product liability actions across the country. Her products liability experience includes representing clients in cutting-edge climate change tort cases, including the Comer class action litigation in Mississippi federal court, the Kivalina case in California federal court, and recent cases brought by counties and cities around the country attributing sea level rise to the production, sale, and promotion of fossil fuels by oil, gas, and coal companies. She also has handled a number of mass tort actions involving environmental contamination.

Tracy also has litigated commercial disputes in a variety of different industries in federal and state courts and in proceedings before the American Arbitration Association.

Tracy is a member of the bars of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia.

Career & Education

|
    • University of Virginia School of Law, J.D.
    • University of Virginia, B.A.
    • University of Virginia School of Law, J.D.
    • University of Virginia, B.A.
    • District of Columbia
    • Virginia
    • District of Columbia
    • Virginia

Tracy's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.24.20

Ninth Circuit Dismisses Kids’ Climate Change Lawsuit Against Federal Government

On January 17, 2020, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the climate change case Juliana v. United States to the Oregon district court with instructions to dismiss. Plaintiffs, a group of children from across the country joined by climate change advocates, filed the lawsuit in 2015, accusing the federal government of causing alleged climate change-related injuries by permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing fossil fuel use. Plaintiffs did not seek damages, claim a violation of statute or regulation, or assert a procedural right. Instead, they asserted a number of constitutional claims, including the right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life,” as well as claims under the public trust doctrine. While conceding that their requested relief would not alone solve global climate change, plaintiffs asked the court to declare that the federal government violated their constitutional and public trust rights and issue an order enjoining the federal government from supporting fossil fuel use and directing it to prepare a national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions....

|

Tracy's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.24.20

Ninth Circuit Dismisses Kids’ Climate Change Lawsuit Against Federal Government

On January 17, 2020, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the climate change case Juliana v. United States to the Oregon district court with instructions to dismiss. Plaintiffs, a group of children from across the country joined by climate change advocates, filed the lawsuit in 2015, accusing the federal government of causing alleged climate change-related injuries by permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing fossil fuel use. Plaintiffs did not seek damages, claim a violation of statute or regulation, or assert a procedural right. Instead, they asserted a number of constitutional claims, including the right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life,” as well as claims under the public trust doctrine. While conceding that their requested relief would not alone solve global climate change, plaintiffs asked the court to declare that the federal government violated their constitutional and public trust rights and issue an order enjoining the federal government from supporting fossil fuel use and directing it to prepare a national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions....