The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mandamus decision on February 2, 2026, examining the International Trade Commission's controversial practice of automatically treating questionnaire responses as confidential information in trade investigations.
The case, *In re United States*, arose from a dispute over the Commission's blanket confidentiality designations for questionnaire responses in countervailing duty and antidumping investigations. The Commission routinely designates these responses as confidential without considering whether the submitting party requested such treatment or whether the information qualifies for confidential status under federal trade statutes.
The underlying procedural dispute centers on sections 1516a and 1677f of Title 19 of the U.S. Code, which govern disclosure and confidentiality in trade investigations. The Commission argued that its automatic confidentiality practice protects sensitive commercial information and ensures parties willingly participate in the investigative process.
However, the Court of International Trade rejected this approach, holding that section 1516a(2)(b) does not eliminate the common law right of public access to judicial records. The provision allows courts to "examine, in camera, the confidential or privileged material, and may disclose such material under such terms and conditions as it may order," but the CIT determined this language does not override traditional transparency principles.
The Court of International Trade further ruled that the Commission's blanket confidentiality practices violate the governing statutes. Under current law, confidential treatment should be determined based on whether information actually meets statutory criteria for protection, not through automatic designation regardless of content or party preference.
The Federal Circuit's review came through a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the United States, seeking to compel the CIT to maintain confidentiality over questionnaire responses. Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy available when lower courts exceed their authority or fail to perform mandatory duties.
Courtney Sheehan McNamara from the Office of General Counsel at the International Trade Commission argued for the petitioner United States. The government's legal team also included Margaret D. MacDonald and Karl von Schriltz from the ITC, along with Elizabeth Anne Speck from the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department's Civil Division.
Alexandra H. Moss from the Public Interest Patent Law Institute in La Quinta, California, participated as amicus curiae counsel, representing broader public interest concerns about transparency in trade proceedings.
The three-judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges Dyk, Taranto, and Chen, with Judge Dyk authoring the opinion. The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the Court of International Trade, making this decision particularly significant for trade law practitioners.
The dispute highlights ongoing tension between protecting legitimate business confidences and maintaining public access to government proceedings. In antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission collects extensive information from domestic and foreign companies about pricing, costs, and market conditions. Companies often claim this data constitutes trade secrets requiring protection from competitors.
However, transparency advocates argue that automatic confidentiality designations prevent proper public oversight of trade enforcement decisions that can significantly impact industries and consumers. The common law presumption favors public access to court records, requiring specific justification for sealing documents.
The Commission's questionnaire practice affects numerous ongoing investigations involving imports from various countries. These investigations can result in duties that substantially increase import costs, making the underlying analysis subject to significant public interest.
The Federal Circuit's decision will establish important precedent for balancing confidentiality claims against transparency requirements in trade cases. The ruling may require the Commission to modify its questionnaire procedures to evaluate confidentiality requests on a case-by-case basis rather than applying blanket designations.
This case reflects broader debates about government transparency and the appropriate scope of confidentiality protections in administrative proceedings. While protecting legitimate trade secrets remains important for encouraging cooperation in investigations, courts must also ensure that confidentiality claims do not unnecessarily shield government decision-making from public scrutiny.
The decision's impact will extend beyond this specific case, potentially affecting how the Commission handles confidentiality in future investigations and how the Court of International Trade reviews such determinations. Trade practitioners will closely monitor implementation of any new procedures resulting from this ruling.
The Federal Circuit's analysis of section 1516a(2)(b) and its relationship to common law access rights will provide guidance for similar disputes involving confidentiality in administrative proceedings. The court's interpretation of statutory language regarding in camera review and conditional disclosure authority will influence future transparency battles in trade enforcement.