Federal Circuit disposition — 24-1566

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellant
______________________
2024-1566
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in No. 1:21-cv-00288-SAV, Judge Stephen A. Vaden.
______________________
Decided: February 2, 2026
______________________
COURTNEY SHEEHAN MCNAMARA, Office of the General
Counsel, United States International Trade Commission,
Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also
represented by MARGARET D. MACDONALD, KARL VON
SCHRILTZ; LOREN MISHA PREHEIM, U.S. International
Trade Commission.
ANDREW J. DHUEY, Andrew J. Dhuey, Attorney at Law,
Berkeley, CA, argued as amicus curiae, pro se. Also repre-
sented by BRIDGET ANNE CLARKE.
ALEXANDRA H. MOSS, Public Interest Patent Law Insti-
tute, La Quinta, CA, argued as amicus curiae counsel.
______________________
Before DYK, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
DYK, Circuit Judge.
Case: 24-1566 Document: 72 Page: 1 Filed: 02/02/2026

-- 1 of 6 --

IN RE US 2
This is a companion case to No. 2025-127, which we
have decided today in a separate opinion.
I
In this antidumping and countervailing duty proceed-
ing involving mattresses, the International Trade Commis-
sion (the “Commission”) determined that an industry in the
United States was materially injured by imports sold at
less than fair value from Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Serbia, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam and by subsidized
imports from China. See Mattresses from Cambodia,
China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey, and
Vietnam, 86 Fed. Reg. 26545 (May 14, 2021).
On December 19, 2023, the Court of International
Trade (“CIT”) issued a merits opinion sustaining the Com-
mission’s final injury determination. Some of the infor-
mation disclosed in this opinion had been treated by the
Commission as confidential because it was submitted in re-
sponse to Commission questionnaires, and the Commission
treats all such information as confidential. The CIT did not
redact information in its opinion that the Commission had
treated as confidential, nor did it address the issue of con-
fidential treatment.
On December 20, 2023, the Commission filed a letter
asking that the court retract the public opinion and “allow
the parties the opportunity to confer and submit comments
regarding any BPI [business proprietary information] for
which they believe the Court should afford confidential
treatment.” App’x 557.1 That same day, the CIT issued an
order instructing the parties to file a motion on the docket
regarding alleged confidential information that “iden-
tif[ies] with specificity what the parties believe is
1 Citations to the App’x refer to the Confidential Ap-
pendix filed by the Commission in No. 24-1566, Dkt.
No. 12.
Case: 24-1566 Document: 72 Page: 2 Filed: 02/02/2026

-- 2 of 6 --

IN RE US 3
Confidential[], reference[s] the Court’s Rules governing
BPI, and include[s] any record pages cited in the opinion
where the alleged BPI is bracketed.” App’x 92.
On December 22, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion
requesting that the CIT reissue the opinion with specific
redactions of company names and numerical approxima-
tions identified in a chart attached to the motion. The mo-
tion argued that confidential treatment should be afforded
to the identified information because the Commission
treats all information in questionnaire responses as confi-
dential and for other reasons.
The CIT denied the motion on January 8, 2024. In an
opinion relying on the common law right of access and em-
phasizing the values of transparency to the judicial pro-
cess, though not specifically addressing the relevant
statute authorizing the court to disclose information,
19 U.S.C. § 1516a,2 the CIT concluded that the requested
redactions did not meet the statutory requirements for con-
fidential treatment under 19 U.S.C. § 1667f, App’x 51–62,
because the information in the merits opinion was either
“availabl[e] from public sources” or “disclosed in a form
which cannot be associated with, or otherwise be used to
2 As discussed in the companion case, this section
provides:
The confidential or privileged status ac-
corded to any documents, comments, or in-
formation shall be preserved in any action
under this section. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, the court may exam-
ine, in camera, the confidential or privi-
leged material, and may disclose such
material under such terms and conditions
as it may order.
19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(2)(B).
Case: 24-1566 Document: 72 Page: 3 Filed: 02/02/2026

-- 3 of 6 --

IN RE US 4
identify, operations of a particular person,” 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677f(a)(4)(A), (b)(2). The CIT also determined that the
parties waived any claim to confidential treatment for
some of the information for failure to follow CIT Rule 5(g).
The Commission appeals the CIT’s denial of the joint
motion. It argues that the statutory scheme in 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677f and 19 U.S.C. § 1516a abrogates the common law
right of access and requires the CIT to preserve the confi-
dential status of information afforded by the Commission;
that it is proper for the Commission to automatically des-
ignate questionnaire responses as confidential; and that
the specific information identified in the joint motion is en-
titled to confidential treatment.
II
Since the claimed confidential information was re-
leased over two years ago, this case would appear to be
moot. See Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States,
579 U.S. 162, 169 (2016) (“[N]o live controversy in the ordi-
nary sense remains because no court is now capable of
granting the relief petitioner seeks.”); Doe No. 1 v. Reed,
697 F.3d 1235, 1238–39 (9th Cir. 2012) (mooting injunction
to prevent public release of petitions because “[t]his relief
is no longer available because the petitions are now avail-
able to the public”); see also Callahan v. United Network for
Organ Sharing, 17 F.4th 1356, 1361 (11th Cir. 2021) (“Re-
quiring UNOS to wait for a final judgment to appeal this
order would allow the documents to enter public circula-
tion, effectively rendering this appeal moot.”). The Com-
mission nevertheless contends that the case is not moot
because the issues presented fall into the exception for is-
sues that are capable of repetition yet evading review.
“That exception applies ‘only in exceptional situations,’
where (1) ‘the challenged action [is] in its duration too short
to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration,’ and (2)
‘there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same com-
plaining party [will] be subject to the same action again.’”
Case: 24-1566 Document: 72 Page: 4 Filed: 02/02/2026

-- 4 of 6 --

IN RE US 5
Kingdomware, 579 U.S. at 170 (alterations in original)
(quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17 (1998)).
Standing alone, this case might well fall within the
mootness exception. But this question is directly affected
by our decision issued today in the companion case where
we have addressed and resolved the merits of the Commis-
sion’s contentions as to confidentiality and also held that,
in cases involving claims of confidentiality, the CIT must
give the Commission and the parties the opportunity to ob-
ject before the claimed confidential material is released to
the public. Under these circumstances, we conclude the
“capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception does
not apply.
The Tenth Circuit considered a similar issue in Utah
Shared Access Alliance v. Carpenter, 463 F.3d 1125
(10th Cir. 2006). In that case, Utah Shared Access Alliance
(“USA-ALL”) contested the Bureau of Land Management’s
(“BLM’s”) restrictions on off-road vehicle (“ORV”) use in
two Utah counties. Id. at 1132–33. BLM issued two orders
in 1999 and 2000 restricting ORV use in one of the coun-
ties. Id. at 1132. After the suit was filed, BLM revoked
those two orders and issued a new 2003 order. Id. at 1132–
33. USA-ALL argued that the Tenth Circuit could still re-
view the two earlier orders under the exception to mootness
for actions capable of repetition but evading review. Id.
at 1134–35. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, noting “the 1999
and 2000 . . . Orders will not evade review because USA–
ALL makes the same arguments with respect to those or-
ders as it does with respect to the 2003 . . . Order, which
this Court reviews.” Id. at 1135.
Under these circumstances, we agree with the Tenth
Circuit that the issues presented in this appeal are moot
and do not evade review. See also Nw. Res. Info. Ctr., Inc.
v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 56 F.3d 1060, 1069–70
(9th Cir. 1995) (concluding that a section 10 permit was
moot and did not evade review because parties could, and
Case: 24-1566 Document: 72 Page: 5 Filed: 02/02/2026

-- 5 of 6 --

IN RE US 6
in fact already had, challenged the current section 10 per-
mit in a different case); 13C Wright & Miller, Federal Prac-
tice & Procedure § 3533.8.2 (3d ed.). Issues that have been
reviewed and resolved on the merits in a companion case
cannot be said to evade review for the purpose of a moot-
ness exception.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1566 Document: 72 Page: 6 Filed: 02/02/2026

-- 6 of 6 --