Background
The International Trade Commission investigated expert witness Gregory Sidak for allegedly violating a protective order issued in a prior Qualcomm versus Apple dispute. The protective order had been issued by an administrative law judge appointed solely by the ITC chairman, a practice the Supreme Court found unconstitutional in Lucia versus Securities and Exchange Commission. The ITC had not ratified the judge’s appointment or his prior actions. Sidak sued to enjoin the investigation, arguing the order was void.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that Sidak had standing, subject-matter jurisdiction, and an implied private right of action under the Constitution. The court rejected the ITC’s arguments that the suit was unripe, noting that the legal questions were purely constitutional and delay would impose hardship. The court also found the suit was not too late, as Sidak did not forfeit his claim by testifying as a witness since he did not affirmatively seek a ruling from the improperly appointed judge. The district court’s grant of a permanent injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
The International Trade Commission unconstitutionally installed an administrative law judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Walker
What it means going forward
The decision prevents the International Trade Commission from enforcing protective orders issued by administrative law judges appointed solely by the chairman without ratification by the full commission. It clarifies that third-party witnesses can challenge such structural constitutional defects without forfeiting their rights.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download