Grayhawk Law handles appeals and dispositive briefing in cases with the highest legal complexity. 

Founding principal Matthew A. Seligman is a seasoned appellate litigator with extensive experience in state and federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States. 

He has drafted dozens of briefs before the Court across a wide range of legal issues. He drafted petitions for certiorari and merits briefs in numerous cases, including Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023); RJR Nabsico, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U.S 325 (2016); Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016); Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 574 U.S. 259 (2015); and United States v. Tinklenberg, 563 U.S. 647 (2011).

Grayhawk Law litigates constitutional questions involving the separation of powers, federalism, and the structure of democratic institutions. The firm represents clients in cases where constitutional doctrine is inseparable from broader questions of institutional design, democratic legitimacy, and governmental authority. The firm’s work draws on both litigation experience and sustained engagement with constitutional theory and history.

Founding principal Matthew A. Seligman has litigated novel constitutional issues and testified before Congress on critical questions facing the legislative branch.  In 2024, he argued before Judge Aileen Cannon in United States vs. Trump to defend the constitutionality of the Special Counsel under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. (See brief.) He is the only private attorney to argue in support of the government in any of the four criminal cases against President Trump. In 2023 and again in 2024, Matthew testified before the U.S. House of Representatives on the First Amendment and the dangers of election misinformation on social media. (See written testimony here, and C-SPAN coverage of testimony here.)

Grayhawk Law offers specialized expertise and strategic litigation on the most challenging issues in election law. Its litigation focuses on constitutional constraints on democratic processes, frequently involving novel issues presented by unprecedented attempts at election subversion. The firm represents clients in disputes concerning election administration, statutory frameworks governing federal elections, and the constitutional limits on governmental power in the electoral context. This work is informed by deep familiarity with both the doctrine and the practical realities of election administration.

Founding principal Matthew A. Seligman has extensive election law experience as a litigator, an expert witness, and a legislative consultant. In the fall of 2020, he represented the NAACP along with Public Citizen Litigation Group and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in NAACP v. United States Postal Service, which challenged USPS delivery delays and inadequate measures to ensure timely delivery of mail-in ballots for the November 2020 election. (See NAACP case description.) In 2023, Matthew served as the principal expert witness on constitutional law testifying on behalf of the California Bar in its successful disciplinary proceeding seeking the disbarment of John Eastman for his role as the legal architect of former President Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. (See expert report.) In 2022, he consulted with members of Congress, pro-democracy legal groups, legal scholars, and other experts in designing and drafting the Electoral Count Reform Act. (See white paper.)

Grayhawk Law handles complex federal litigation involving difficult questions of statutory interpretation, administrative law, and regulatory authority. These matters often involve overlapping legal regimes, compressed timelines, and significant institutional stakes. The firm is structured to handle cases where legal complexity and strategic judgment are essential aspects of high-stakes litigation.

Founding principal Matthew A. Seligman has handled complex, high-stakes federal litigation involving intricate statutory schemes, administrative-law challenges, and significant institutional consequences. His experience includes litigating matters requiring strategic coordination across multiple legal regimes and forums, often under compressed timelines and intense public or governmental scrutiny. Those matters range from representations of individual clients to mass litigation involving tens of thousands of parallel cases. This work reflects a judgment-driven approach to litigation that focuses on identifying the highest-leverage points in complex cases and precision litigation tactics and briefing that maximize the client’s interests.

Grayhawk Law represents importers who have paid duties on imports subject to the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (known as IEEPA) beginning in April of 2025. The Supreme Court held those tariffs are unlawful in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 (U.S., Feb. 20, 2026), and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, No. 25-250 (U.S., Feb. 20, 2026). You can read the Court’s opinion here.

Founding principal Matthew A. Seligman has been deeply involved in the litigation, filing briefs on behalf of a distinguished group of former governmental officials in both the Federal Circuit (see brief) and the Supreme Court (see brief).

Contrary to widespread belief among importers, refunds likely will be issued only if importers take necessary procedural steps to preserve their rights. In the aftermath of the Court’s ruling, the internal statute of limitations for the Customs and Border Protection’s administrative process expires for liquidated entries with each passing day. Accordingly, it is critical that importers take steps now to ensure they preserve their refund rights. 

Timely action may be critical to preserving refund rights. For more information, visit www.tariffrefundlaw.com.

Disclaimer: This page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal rights and obligations depend on the specific facts and applicable law. Deadlines and procedural requirements may vary by importer and entry. You should consult counsel regarding your particular circumstances.