Huawei announced that it has requested a summary judgement by the court handling its appeal against the US ban on government users buying its products. The company said at a press conference that it had been singled out for punishment by the legislation, which is against the US constitution.
The lawsuit was filed in March in the US District Court in Plano, Texas, and Huawei wants the court to rule in its favour without a full trial. The Defense Authorization Act was signed into law in August 2018, and Section 889 of the law bars all US government agencies from buying Huawei equipment and services, as well as contracting with or awarding grants or loans to third parties who buy Huawei equipment or services. This means Huawei cannot supply the many small operators in the US that benefit from federal universal service subsidies.
Huawei's chief legal officer Song Liuping issued a statement outlining the company's position, as well as publishing an article in the Wall Street Journal. He said politicians in the US "are using the strength of an entire nation to come after a private company", and this is "not normal. Almost never seen in history.
"The fact is, the US government has provided no evidence to show that Huawei is a security threat. There is no gun, no smoke. Only speculation," Song said in a statement.
Huawei's chief counsel, Glen Nager from the firm Jones Day called Section 889 "unconstitutional selective legislative punishment". He said Congress does not have the power to selectively punish companies like this; it only enacts laws, and cannot exert executive or judicial powers. Furthermore the law is not written to achieve its stated purpose of national defense, as many of the parties banned from doing with business with Huawei have no role in defense and there is no text covering hardware that could be considered part of defense.
"Indeed, the legislative record shows that the restrictions in section 889 were enacted as a response to Huawei’s alleged past misdeeds and supposed association with the Chinese government—the most classic function of punishment and a quintessential violation of the Bill of Attainder Clause," Nager said.
