Court rules ITC's investigation into Gregory Sidak for violating a protective order was based on an unconstitutionally appointed ALJ's action.
What happened
The D.C. Circuit affirmed a district court's permanent injunction against the U.S. International Trade Commission's investigation into expert witness Gregory Sidak, ruling that the agency's enforcement action relied on a protective order issued by an unconstitutionally appointed administrative law judge.
The court held that "The International Trade Commission unconstitutionally installed an administrative law judge. In an agency adjudication, he issued an order to protect trade secrets." The ALJ in question was appointed solely by the ITC chairman, a practice the Supreme Court found unconstitutional in Lucia v. SEC. While the ITC later ratified the ALJ's appointment, it did not ratify the ALJ's past actions, including the protective order at issue.
Sidak, who testified as an expert witness in a separate Qualcomm-Apple ITC proceeding, was later investigated by the ITC for allegedly violating the protective order's document-destruction requirements. Sidak sued to enjoin the investigation, arguing that the unconstitutionally installed ALJ lacked the authority to issue a binding protective order.
The D.C. Circuit rejected the ITC's arguments that Sidak's suit was either too early or too late. The court found the suit ripe for review because it presented purely legal questions about the ALJ's authority and the protective order's enforceability, with no further factual development needed. The court also held that Sidak did not forfeit his Appointments Clause claim by testifying in the original proceeding, as he was a third-party witness who did not invoke the forum or seek relief from the ITC.
The court affirmed that Sidak had standing, subject-matter jurisdiction, and an implied private right of action under the Constitution to challenge the unconstitutionally structured agency. It noted that the ITC could have ratified the ALJ's actions but chose not to, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the permanent injunction.