Is the U.S. entity ban against Huawei against the rule of law?
<p>Is the U.S. entity ban against Huawei against the rule of law? Huawei hasn’t been formally charged or convicted in any court of law and not a single evidence hasn’t been presented to prove Huawei devices being used to spyi or being a threat to U.S. national security, yet Huawei was heavily punished. Doesn't that violate due process laws?</p>

<p>I believe you are using <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law" rel="noreferrer">rule of law</a> when you mean <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process" rel="noreferrer">due process</a>. The former refers to equality before the law and the subjugation of executive government to the law while the latter refers accepted measures of justice and fairness in the administration of the law and, in the United States, to the supremacy of the judiciary over the legislature (the situation is reversed in the UK).</p>

<p>Assuming that to be the case, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause" rel="noreferrer">due process clause</a> in the fifth amendment provides that "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...". That is, actions against Huawei must only be taken as permitted by the law.</p>

<p>The law that permits the President to institute the Huawei ban is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act" rel="noreferrer">International Emergency Economic Powers Act</a>. As such, at face value, this is a legitimate exercise in executive power. Huawei has the right to challenge the ban in US courts, as such, they have been afforded due process.</p>

<p>The premise of the question is invalid.  Huawei <em>has</em> been formally charged in court.</p>

<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-huawei/huawei-pleads-not-guilty-to-u-s-charges-in-new-york-court-idUSKCN1QV2AT" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-huawei/huawei-pleads-not-guilty-to-u-s-charges-in-new-york-court-idUSKCN1QV2AT</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/us-hammers-huawei-with-23-indictments-for-alleged-trade-secret-theft-fraud/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.cnet.com/news/us-hammers-huawei-with-23-indictments-for-alleged-trade-secret-theft-fraud/</a></p></li>
</ul>

<p>And they've also already lost in court:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/technology/july-awards-t-mobile-48m-in-trade-secrets-case-against-huawei/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.seattletimes.com/business/technology/july-awards-t-mobile-48m-in-trade-secrets-case-against-huawei/</a></li>
</ul>

<p>No evidence?  Here's some:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/30/huawei-t-mobile-emails-espionage-tappy-robot-steal-2012/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/30/huawei-t-mobile-emails-espionage-tappy-robot-steal-2012/</a></li>
</ul>

<p>and a report on much much more:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://fas.org/irp/congress/2012_rpt/huawei.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://fas.org/irp/congress/2012_rpt/huawei.pdf</a></li>
</ul>

international corporate-law due-process