The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered a stinging rebuke to the International Trade Commission (ITC) on Friday, ruling that the agency cannot punish an expert witness based on an order issued by an “unconstitutionally installed” judge.
The case, J. Gregory Sidak v. United States International Trade Commission, centered on a 2017 protective order meant to shield trade secrets in a legal battle between Qualcomm and Apple. Years after that case ended, the ITC launched an investigation into Sidak, an expert witness, alleging he failed to destroy confidential documents as required by the order.
Sidak fought back, arguing the order was legally “void” because the administrative law judge (ALJ) who signed it was never properly appointed under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
READ: Flight Canceled: Trump Pulls U.S. Envoys After Iran Rules Out Direct Talks
Writing for the court, Circuit Judge Walker noted that for decades, the ITC chairman had unilaterally appointed judges without a vote from the full commission. This practice was upended by the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in Lucia v. SEC, which established that such judges are “inferior officers” who must be appointed by the “Head” of the agency—in this case, the collective body of ITC commissioners.
While the ITC eventually ratified its judges’ appointments to fix the problem moving forward, it never officially ratified the past actions of those judges, including the 2017 order covering Sidak.
“Too Early and Too Late”
The government’s defense relied on a “Goldilocks” strategy, claiming Sidak’s lawsuit was both too early and too late. They argued Sidak should have waited for the investigation to finish before suing (ripeness) and that he should have objected to the judge’s authority back in 2017.
The court rejected both arguments. Judge Walker pointed out that Sidak, as a third-party witness rather than a direct party to the Qualcomm-Apple case, had no reason or opportunity to challenge the judge’s status until the ITC turned its sights on him personally.
“Agreeing to testify is materially different from invoking a forum and affirmatively seeking a ruling,” Walker wrote, distinguishing Sidak’s role from companies that actively use the court system and then try to complain about the results later.
READ: “My Son Is A Angel”: Newly Released Transcripts Detail Kohberger’s Mother’s Desperate Defense
The ruling affirms a lower court’s permanent injunction, effectively killing the ITC’s investigation into Sidak. The court noted that the agency could have avoided this mess by simply ratifying its past orders—a move recommended by the Solicitor General—but failed to do so.
“If any broader reliance interests are affected in this case, the Commission is to blame,” the court concluded.
The decision serves as a firm reminder that federal agencies must strictly adhere to constitutional appointment standards, or risk seeing years of legal work and enforcement actions go up in smoke.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
