Huawei has recently filed a lawsuit against the US government for unconstitutionally restricting their equipment. Dr. Song Liuping, Chief Legal Officer of Huawei and Glen D. Nager, the lead counsel of this legal action spoke to media in a press conference recently.
“Section 889 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, singles out Huawei by name and not only bars U.S. government agencies from buying Huawei equipment and services, but also bars them from contracting with or awarding grants or loans to third parties who buy Huawei equipment or services—even if there is no impact or connection to the U.S. government Huawei filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court to defend itself and its customers from that aforesaid U.S. statute that improperly targets and punishes Huawei,” said Dr. Song Liuping.
Huawei claims, Section 889 is unconstitutional. Section 889 causes injury to Huawei but, even more importantly, to Huawei’s customers. It prevents Huawei from providing its world-leading technologies to any company that does business with the U.S. Government. Sadly, Section 889 is based on numerous false, unproven, and untested propositions. Contrary to the statute’s premise, Huawei is not owned, controlled, or influenced by the Chinese government. Moreover, Huawei has an excellent security record and program. No contrary evidence has been offered, and Huawei has never had a fair chance to confront or cross-examine its accusers. Nor has it been allowed an impartial adjudicator. The U.S. Congress has simply acted as law-maker, prosecutor, and jury at the same time, contrary to the American Constitution.
Glen D. Nager, the lead counsel of this legal action said, “The Bill of Attainder Clause prohibits legislation that is both selective and imposes punishment. The Complaint argues that Section 889 violates this constitutional proscription, because among other things it selectively bars only Huawei (and one other entity) from providing certain products to the Federal Government, its contractors, and federal loan and grant recipients.
The Due Process Clause requires “due process of law” before anyone is deprived of life, liberty, or property. Under this Clause, a legislative deprivation of liberty is thus constitutional only if it is imposed in accordance with generally applicable rules. Our Complaint argues that Section 889 violates this generality requirement by singling out Huawei (and one other entity) and precluding it from selling covered equipment. Section 889 stigmatizes Huawei by selectively insinuating that Huawei is subject to Chinese Government influence and is a security risk.”
Glen added, “Under the Vesting Clauses, Congress has only the power to make rules, not the power to apply those rules to individuals. Instead, the power to apply rules to specific individuals belongs to the executive and the judiciary. The Complaint argues that Section 889 violates the Vesting Clauses and the separation of powers embodied in them by effectively adjudicating Huawei’s supposed connection to the Chinese government, instead of allowing the Executive and the courts to make that judgment.”