Ryan S. Baasch

Washington, D.C.
  • 555 Eleventh Street, NW
  • Suite 1000
  • Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
  • USA

Ryan Baasch is a litigation associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Latham & Watkins.

Mr. Baasch’s practice focuses primarily on high-stakes government-facing litigation, including systematic challenges to government regulatory programs. He has litigated and provided counseling on novel issues of administrative and constitutional law for clients in a variety of industries, including telecommunications, biotechnology, chemical, and pharmaceutical spaces. Mr. Baasch also represents clients in other forms of complex litigation, including under the False Claims Act and class action defense.

In 2018, for example, Mr. Baasch was the lead associate in a successful First Amendment challenge to a state law compelling factually inaccurate and controversial speech. In 2019, he successfully argued a case in the Second Circuit defeating local legislators’ claims of “legislative immunity.”

Prior to joining Latham, Mr. Baasch clerked for Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. While in law school, he was an articles editor for the Virginia Law Review. Mr. Baasch has authored several law review articles and other professional publications, including “Reorganizing Organizational Standing,” 103 Virginia Law Review Online 18 (2017).

Mr. Baasch's recent representative experience includes:

  • NAACP v. East Ramapo Central School District, 2019 WL 4197116 (2d Cir. Sept. 5, 2019): rejecting local legislators’ claim of legislative immunity after argument by Mr. Baasch
  • United States ex rel. Kasowitz v. BASF et al., 929 F.3d 721 (D.C. Cir. 2019): affirming dismissal of False Claims Act liability for alleged regulatory reporting violations
  • Athenex Inc. v. Azar, 19-cv-00603, 2019 WL 3501811 (D.D.C. Aug. 1, 2019): defeating challenge by client’s competitor to FDA's regulatory determination in favor of client regarding bulk compounding
  • In re Subpoena and Deposition Notice, 1:18-mc-538 (S.D.N.Y. Nov 30, 2018): quashing third party document subpoena and deposition notice
  • Par Sterile Products, LLC et al v. Hargan, 1:17-cv-02221 (D.D.C. Oct. 26, 2017): challenging FDA “guidance” document purporting to exercise “enforcement discretion” over certain drug compounding activities
  • The People of the State of New York v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 450318/2017 (Sup. Ct. NY): defending Charter Communications, Inc. from New York Attorney General enforcement action alleging false advertising and unfair and deceptive business practices
  • Citizens Telecommunications Co. v. FCC, 901 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2018): successfully defended FCC deregulatory order on business data services on behalf of Intervenors Comcast Corporation and NCTA – The Internet & Television Association
  • National Association of Wheat Growers et al v. Zeise, 2:17-cv-02401 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2018): obtaining on First Amendment grounds a preliminary injunction against enforcement of California’s Proposition 65’s warning requirement
  • National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA, 17-70196 (9th Cir.): defending Monsanto Company’s regulatory approval for new herbicide registration
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.