J. Sidak v. United States International Trade Commission

── J. Sidak v. United States International Trade Commission ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 7, 2024 Decided April 24, 2026 No. 23-5149 J. GREGORY SIDAK, APPELLEE v. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, ET AL., APPELLANTS Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:23-cv-00325) Joshua M. Salzman, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, at the time the briefs were filed, and Anna M. Stapleton, Attorney. Christopher Landau argued the cause and filed the brief for appellee. Paul D. Clement and Andrew C. Lawrence entered appearances. Before: KATSAS, RAO, and WALKER, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALKER.  2 WALKER, Circuit Judge: The International Trade Commission unconstitutionally installed an administrative law judge. In an agency adjudication, he issued an order to protect trade secrets. The order covered an expert witness named Gregory Sidak. Years later, the ITC investigated Sidak for violating the protective order. Sidak sued to enjoin the investigation. He argued that an unconstitutionally installed ALJ lacks the authority to issue a binding protective order. In response, the ITC argued that Sidak’s suit was too early — and also too late. The district court disagreed and enjoined the investigation. We affirm. I. How We Got To Now The Tariff Act of 1930 prohibits importers from engaging in unfair methods of competition and intellectual-property infringement. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a). The Act is enforced by the International Trade Commission. The ITC is a multi- member agency consisting of a chairman and five other commissioners. The six commissioners constitute the ITC’s “Head.” See Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477, 512-13 (2010). Beneath the commissioners sit administrative law judges. They review evidence and adjudicate violations of the Tariff Act, which can be appealed to the ITC. See 19 U.S.C. § 1335; 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.3, 210.10(b)(2)-(3), 210.42(a)(1)(i) & (h), 210.45. In doing so, the ALJs can issue orders to protect “confidential business information.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1335 (general rulemaking authority); id. § 1337(n)(1)  3 (confidentiality protections); 19 C.F.R. § 210.34(a) (implementing regulations); Summary of Commission Practice Relating to Administrative Protective Orders, 89 Fed. Reg. 104562 (Dec. 23, 2024). The process for remedying violations of a protective order depends on whether the initial proceeding before the ALJ is open or closed. If open, the ALJ can enforce the protective order. 19 C.F.R. § 210.25(b). If closed, the ITC can enforce it. Id. § 210.25(c). In the latter instance, the ITC first opens an investigation. 89 Fed. Reg. at 104564; An Introduction to Administrative Protective Order Practice in Import Injury Investigations, U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, at 11-12 (Jan. 2022), https://perma.cc/8LX8-TU38. Then, it determines whether a violation occurred and (if so) how to penalize it. See 89 Fed. Reg. at 104564. The possible penalties include (1) an official reprimand, (2) disqualification from a pending investigation, (3) disqualification from all practice before the ITC, (4) referral to a licensing authority, and (5) adverse inferences against the breaching party. See 19 C.F.R. § 210.34(c)(3). A. The ITC’s ALJs For many decades, the ITC’s chairman unilaterally appointed the agency’s ALJs without the votes of other commissioners. But in 2018, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional the appointments of ALJs in