Huawei files lawsuit against FCC, alleging it violates U.S. Constitution

[[284776]]

On December 5, Huawei's Shenzhen headquarters held a press conference, announcing that it had formally filed a complaint in a U.S. court, requesting the court to determine that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) decision to ban Huawei from participating in federal subsidy funding projects violated the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.

On November 22, the FCC decided to identify Huawei as a national security threat to the United States and banned rural operators in the United States from using the Universal Service Fund (USF) to purchase Huawei equipment. In the complaint filed with the United States Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Huawei believes that the FCC directly determined that Huawei posed a national security threat and did not give Huawei the opportunity to refute the relevant allegations, which violated the principle of due process. Huawei also believes that the FCC did not provide any evidence or reasonable reasons to support its arbitrary decision, which violated the U.S. Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act and other U.S. laws.

Huawei's chief legal officer Song Liuping said at the press conference, "Banning Huawei simply because we are a Chinese company will not solve any cybersecurity problems."

He said that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and other commissioners have not provided any evidence to prove their allegations that Huawei poses a security threat. Since the FCC first proposed this proposal in March 2018, Huawei and rural operators in the United States have submitted multiple rounds of factual evidence and objections, but the FCC has completely ignored these factual evidence and opinions.

Song Liuping said in a statement, "Huawei also submitted 21 rounds of detailed comments, explaining the harm this decision would cause to users and businesses in remote areas. But the FCC ignored all of these comments."

He also said, "Carriers in rural areas of the United States, including small towns in Montana and Kentucky, farms in Wyoming and other areas, choose to cooperate with Huawei because they recognize the quality and security of Huawei equipment. The FCC should not prohibit Huawei from cooperating with carriers to provide connectivity services to rural areas of the United States."

Glen Nager, the lead lawyer in the case, said that the FCC passed this decision targeting only Chinese companies such as Huawei without following relevant standards, and the FCC itself also admitted that it was targeting Chinese companies.

In addition, GlenNager said, the rule also exceeds the FCC's statutory authority because the FCC does not have the authority to make national security determinations or to restrict the use of USF funds based on such determinations. In addition, the FCC does not have the expertise to make national security determinations.

GlenNager also said that the decision made against Huawei lacked legal and factual basis. He pointed out: "The FCC did not make this judgment based on evidence, but on a fundamental misunderstanding of Chinese law and unreasonable, unreliable and unacceptable accusations and innuendos. This decision is purely an unreasonable and bad prejudgment."

Song Kai, vice president of Huawei's corporate communications department, said the FCC's decision is not conducive to improving the level of connectivity in rural areas of the United States, because these areas rely on Huawei's equipment to access the network, and other manufacturers are unwilling to operate in "very remote, difficult terrain and sparsely populated" areas. He also said that the ban and the subsequent proposal to remove and replace Huawei equipment will bring hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs and even cause some small operators to go bankrupt.