View all newsletters
Receive our newsletter - data, insights and analysis delivered to you

Huawei Sues America

The Secretaries of Labor, Health, Education, Agruculture, Veteran Affairs and Acting Secretary of the Interior are all named as defendants in the filing. 

By CBR Staff Writer

In an astonishing gambit Huawei is suing the United States in a legal challenge that questions the constitutionality of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Huawei’s case is that section 889 of the NDAA signed into law by President Trump is unfairly targeting the company as it bans any U.S government agencies from buying their products or those of any third party supplier using Huawei equipment.

The Shenzhen-based technology company state that these measures have been taken without any judicial process and that section 889 violates US constitutional provisions.

Read this: 5G Security: NCSC CEO Says Huawei Not the Issue

A court filing [pdf] shows that Huawei is not just suing the United States of America: leading politicians have been named as defendants.  (It is targeting specific departments that would normally purchase Huawei equipmen).

Huawei has signed up three law firms to launch the legal blitz: Siebman, Forrest, Burg & Smith, LLP; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP; and Jones Day.

Huawei Sues US: Leading Politicians Also Named as Defendants 

Huawei sues US

Huawei Employees installing mobile network hardware Image Source: Huawei

The Secretaries of Labor, Health, Education, Agruculture, Veteran Affairs and Acting Secretary of the Interior are all named as defendants in the filing.

A key provision Huawei’s lawyers cite in the court paper is the Due Process Clause. Huawei states that section 889 is “severely curtailing its freedom to do business, stigmatizing it by effectively branding it a tool of the Chinese government and a risk to U.S. security, and denying it any pre-deprivation legal process to confront the congressional charges against it.”

Content from our partners
Green for go: Transforming trade in the UK
Manufacturers are switching to personalised customer experience amid fierce competition
How many ends in end-to-end service orchestration?

The case is part of an broader escalation in tariffs and legal cases between the US, Huawei and China as we have previously reported here on the US’s case. It is also part of a larger global conflict that Huawei is having with States as seen in our reporting on the UK’s concerns about the use of Huawei equipment.

National Defense Authorization Act

Huawei Technologies USA Inc. and Huawei Technologies Co are the two plaintiffs named in the court filings that were submitted to the U.S District Court in Plano, Texas. Both entities are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Huawei Investment & Holding Co, which is headquartered in Shenzhen, China.

The National Defense Authorization Act Huawei is targeting was first passed in 1961 and essentially mandates what government agencies defence responsibilities are and dictates how they should spend their budgets.

Section 889 signed into law by Trump last August puts a prohibition on the purchases of: “Telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities).”

Huawei Chairman Guo Ping commented in a release: “The U.S. Congress has repeatedly failed to produce any evidence to support its restrictions on Huawei products. We are compelled to take this legal action as a proper and last resort.”

“This ban not only is unlawful, but also restricts Huawei from engaging in fair competition, ultimately harming U.S. consumers.”

Huawei Sues US to Protect Consumers

Huawei makes the case in its court fillings that consumers in the U.S will be directly affected by Section 889 as they will be “be deprived of access to the most advanced technologies”.

Huawei sue us

Huawei HQ
Image Source: Huawei

The technology company states that consumers in rural and low-income areas will suffer the most as without Huawei equipment and services they will face “higher prices and a significantly less competitive market.” It highlights 5G technologies in particular, commenting that American consumers will not have access to state-of-the-art networks or services.

In the court papers the company insisted that its security protocols and measures are of the highest standards writing that: “Huawei equipment and services are subject to advanced security procedures, and no backdoors, implants, or other intentional security vulnerabilities have been documented in any of the more than 170 countries in the world where Huawei equipment and services are used.”

The legal case taken by Huawei this week is similar to a case taken by Kaspersky Lab a Russian-based cybersecurity company in 2018, which sought to challenge a US ban on the integration of any of its software into government systems. That case was thrown out by a Federal appeals court.

Guo Ping commented that: “If this law is set aside, as it should be, Huawei can bring more advanced technologies to the United States and help it build the best 5G networks. Huawei is willing to address the U.S. Government’s security concerns. Lifting the NDAA ban will give the U.S. Government the flexibility it needs to work with Huawei and solve real security issues.”


Websites in our network
Select and enter your corporate email address Tech Monitor's research, insight and analysis examines the frontiers of digital transformation to help tech leaders navigate the future. Our Changelog newsletter delivers our best work to your inbox every week.
  • CIO
  • CTO
  • CISO
  • CSO
  • CFO
  • CDO
  • CEO
  • Architect Founder
  • MD
  • Director
  • Manager
  • Other
Visit our privacy policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications. Our services are intended for corporate subscribers and you warrant that the email address submitted is your corporate email address.