Huawei is suing the U.S. over a law that bans government agencies from buying the Chinese technology giant's equipment, claiming the legislation is unconstitutional, as the company goes on the front foot following months of political pressure.

The lawsuit, which was filed on Thursday local time, focuses on a provision in a law known as the National Defense Authorization Act. Section 889 of that legislation prohibits executive government agencies from procuring telecommunications hardware made by Huawei and another Chinese firm, ZTE. Both companies are explicitly named in the act.

But lawyers for the world's largest network equipment maker by revenue, argued that the provision in the NDAA is against the U.S. Constitution.

Huawei has faced intense pressure from President Donald Trump's administration, which claims the company's equipment could be used for espionage by the Chinese government. The tech giant is also facing criminal charges from the Justice Department, which has accused it of stealing trade secrets and skirting U.S. sanctions on Iran. The U.S. government has also tried to persuade allies against using Huawei gear.

Top executives, including the company's founder, have repeatedly denied the allegations that Huawei is a security risk, while the company has also been carrying out a major public relations push to change its image. The Chinese firm is now going on the legal offensive. </s> Huawei will challenge the constitutionality of a law being used to prevent it from providing 5G equipment to US telecommunications carriers through a ban on government use of its products and services.

The Chinese company said it would seek to upend adecision made under Section 889 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which bans US government agencies from purchasing equipment and services from it.

Huawei, which is the world’s largest manufacturer of telecommunication equipment, said that the NDAA also prevents US government agencies from awarding contracts or grants to, or offering loans to, third parties that purchase equipment or services from it.

The company argues that the law violates Bill of Attainder Clause and the Due Process Clause as well as the separation of powers principles in the US constitution.

“The US Congress has repeatedly failed to produce any evidence to support its restrictions on Huawei products,” said Huawei rotating chairperson Guo Ping in remarks prepared for a press conference today.

“After exhausting all other means to allay the doubts of some US lawmakers, we are left with no choice but to challenge the law in court. This ban not only is unlawful, but also harms both Huawei and US consumers.”

Last year, the Australian government banned Huawei and another Chinese firm, ZTE, from participating in the local rollout of 5G networks.

The government in August said that it had issued a direction to telcos after undertaking “an extensive review of the national security risks to 5G networks”.

Canberra said it had told telcos that they should avoid the “involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law” or they may risk failure to “adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or interference”.

Australia’s Telecommunications Sector Security Reforms (TSSR) legislation created a legal obligation for network operators to protect their infrastructure from sabotage and foreign interference.

Huawei had indicated it only intended to provide equipment for the radio access network (RAN) portion of Australian 5G networks, not telcos’ core networks. However, the government said advice provided to it was that 5G would blur the boundaries between edge and core introducing “new challenges for carriers trying to maintain their customers’ security, as sensitive functions move outside of the highly protected core environment”.

“This new architecture provides a way to circumvent traditional security controls by exploiting equipment in the edge of the network – exploitation which may affect overall network integrity and availability, as well as the confidentiality of customer data,” a statement released by the government at the time said.

Telco TPG has cited the government’s Huawei ban as the driver for its decision in January to halt the rollout of a mobile network. Vodafone has also criticised the ban.

The Australian and US governments are not alone in their push to exclude Huawei.

In November, New Zealand telco Spark revealed that it had been given government advice to shy away from using the company’s 5G equipment.

In the UK, Huawei may be permitted to have a limited role in the rollout of 5G. The company has also been challenged in France, Germany and Canada.

“For three decades, we have maintained a solid track record in cyber security. Huawei has not and will never implant backdoors. We will never allow others to install any in our equipment,” Guo Ping said today.

“The US government has long branded Huawei a threat. It has hacked our servers and stolen our emails and source code. Despite this, the US government has never provided any evidence supporting their accusations that Huawei poses a cyber security threat.”

“Still, the U.S. Government is sparing no effort to smear the company and mislead the public about Huawei. Even worse, the US government is trying to block us from the 5G markets in other countries,” he added.

The company’s lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

“While courts do not have the authority to protect the people from all the ill-advised aspects of the NDAA, they do have the duty to protect Huawei and others from its unconstitutional aspects—including its specific targeting of Huawei for punishment, its deprivation of Huawei’s liberty without a fair and impartial hearing, and its usurpation of the charging and adjudicative powers reserved by the Constitution to the executive and judicial branches,” the complaint filed by Huawei states.

“Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court declare unconstitutional and enjoin enforcement of those discrete aspects of section 889 that violate the Constitution, while leaving all other aspects of the NDAA, and the remainder of section 889 itself, intact.” </s> SHENZHEN, China -- Huawei today filed a motion for summary judgment as part of the process to challenge the constitutionality of Section 889 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (2019 NDAA). It also called on the U.S. government to halt its state-sanctioned campaign against Huawei because it will not deliver cybersecurity.

Banning Huawei using cybersecurity as an excuse "will do nothing to make networks more secure. They provide a false sense of security, and distract attention from the real challenges we face," said Song Liuping, Huawei's chief legal officer. "Politicians in the U.S. are using the strength of an entire nation to come after a private company," Song noted. "This is not normal. Almost never seen in history."

"The U.S. government has provided no evidence to show that Huawei is a security threat. There is no gun, no smoke. Only speculation," Song added.

In the complaint, Huawei argues that Section 889 of the 2019 NDAA 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.

Song also addressed the addition of Huawei to the "Entity List" by the U.S. Commerce Department two weeks ago. "This sets a dangerous precedent. Today it's telecoms and Huawei. Tomorrow it could be your industry, your company, your consumers," he said.

"The judicial system is the last line of defense for justice. Huawei has confidence in the independence and integrity of the U.S. judicial system. We hope that mistakes in the NDAA can be corrected by the court," Song added.

Glen Nager, Huawei's lead counsel for the case, said Section 889 of the 2019 NDAA violates the Bill of Attainder, Due Process, and Vesting Clauses of the United States Constitution. Thus the case is purely "a matter of law" as there are no facts at issue, thereby justifying the motion for a summary judgement to speed up the process.

Huawei believes that U.S. suppression of Huawei will not help make networks more secure. Huawei expects the U.S. to take the right approach and adopt honest and effective measures to enhance cybersecurity for everyone, if the U.S. government's real goal is security.

In line with a court scheduling order, a hearing on the motion is set for Sept. 19. </s> 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

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.”

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.

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 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”.

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.” </s> Huawei is suing the United States government following what it says are unconstitutional sales restrictions imposed by congress.

In a press conference from its offices in Shenzhen, the China-based technology company announced it has filed a complaint with the US federal court to challenge the constitutionality of Section 889 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

“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,” said Guo Ping, Huawei Rotating Chairman.

“This ban not only is unlawful, but also restricts Huawei from engaging in fair competition, ultimately harming U.S. consumers. We look forward to the court’s verdict, and trust that it will benefit both Huawei and the American people.”

The lawsuit was filed in a US district court in Plano, Texas.

This follows building tension between the US and Huawei after the US reportedly barred federal agencies from using Huawei tech. The US has long voiced concerns that Huawei technology – along with its fellow Chinese telecom company ZTE – could pose a security risk, fearing that the company’s technology could act as a backdoor for the Chinese government to spy.

The ban also bars Huawei from contracting with or awarding grants or loans to third parties who buy Huawei equipment or services, without any executive or judicial process.

They say it violates the Bill of Attainder Clause and the Due Process Clause. It also violates the Separation-of-Powers principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, because Congress is both making the law, and attempting to adjudicate and execute it.

“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,” said Song Liuping, Huawei’s Chief Legal Office.

The restrictions are particularly hurting Huawei’s rollout of 5G in the US, which could reduce the cost of wireless infrastructure by between 15% and 40%. This would save North America at least $20 billion (R284 million) over the next four years.

Thanks to a partnership with Huawei, South African mobile data-only network operator Rain, could beat cellphone network giants Vodacom, MTN, Cell C and Telkom to 5G in South Africa. They plan leverage their existing licensed spectrum on 4G, to bring 5G to South Africa by mid-2019. </s> Huawei said it had filed a complaint in a federal court in Texas challenging the constitutionality of Section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a section signed into law by the U.S. president in August that banned federal agencies and their contractors from procuring its equipment and services.

"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," Huawei Rotating Chairman Guo Ping said in a statement.

"This ban not only is unlawful, but also restricts Huawei from engaging in fair competition, ultimately harming U.S. consumers. We look forward to the court's verdict, and trust that it will benefit both Huawei and the American people."

While Huawei had very little market share in the U.S. telecoms market before the bill, it is the world's biggest producer of telecoms equipment and is seeking to be at the forefront of a global roll-out of fifth generation (5G) mobile networks and services.

"Lifting the NDAA ban will give the U.S. Government the flexibility it needs to work with Huawei and solve real security issues," Guo said.

In its lawsuit, Huawei said its "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 privately owned firm has embarked on a public relations and legal offensive as Washington lobbies allies to abandon Huawei when building 5G mobile networks, centering on a 2017 Chinese law requiring companies cooperate with national intelligence work.

Founder and Chief Executive Ren Zhengfei has said Huawei, the world's biggest telecoms gear maker, has never and will never share data with China's government.

The NDDA bans the U.S. government from doing business with Huawei or compatriot peer ZTE Corp or from doing business with any company that has equipment from the two firms as a "substantial or essential component" of their system.

In its lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, Huawei argues that the section of the law is illegal because it could sharply limit the company's ability to do business in the United States despite no proof of wrongdoing.

Separately, the lawsuit also alleges that Huawei has been denied due process and that Congress, by stripping Huawei of U.S. commercial opportunities, has violated the "separation of powers" portion of the constitution by doing the work of the courts.

Some legal experts, however, said Huawei's lawsuit is likely to be dismissed because U.S. courts are reluctant to second-guess national security determinations by other branches of government.

The lawsuit "will be an uphill battle because Congress has broad authority to protect us from perceived national security threats," said Franklin Turner, a government contracts lawyer at McCarter & English.

In November 2018, a federal appeals court rejected a similar lawsuit filed by Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab, which was challenging a ban on the use of the company's software in U.S. government networks.

The Texas court hearing Huawei's case will not be bound by that decision, but will likely adopt its reasoning because of the similarities in the two disputes, said Steven Schwinn, a professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago.

"I don't see how (Huawei) can really escape that result," said Schwinn.

If a judge decides Huawei has a plausible claim the case will proceed to the discovery phase, in which internal documents are shared and U.S. government officials could be forced to provide testimony and lay out their national security concerns.

The legal action and public relations outreach compare with a more restrained response in December emphasizing "trust in justice" when its chief financial officer, Sabrina Meng Wanzhou, was arrested in Vancouver at U.S. request.

The United States has accused Meng - Ren's daughter - of bank and wire fraud related to breaches of trade sanctions against Iran.

Meng appeared in court on Wednesday during which her lawyer expressed concern that the allegations have a political character, raising U.S. President Donald Trump's comments on the case.

Separately, Meng, who is fighting extradition, is suing Canada's government for procedural wrongs in her arrest.

The case had strained relations with China, which this week accused two arrested Canadians of stealing state secrets in a move widely seen as retribution for Meng's arrest.

While Meng is under house arrest in Vancouver, it is unclear where the two Canadians are being detained in China. Sources previously told Reuters that at least one of the Canadians did not have access to legal representation.

Ren met international media for the first time in several years in mid-January, calling U.S. President Donald Trump "great" and refraining from commenting directly on Meng's case. Shifting tone, Ren in mid-February said Meng's arrest was politically motivated and "not acceptable".

Long before Trump initiated a trade war with China, Huawei's activities were under scrutiny by U.S. authorities, according to interviews with 10 people familiar with the Huawei probes and documents related to the investigations seen by Reuters. </s> Huawei is asking a federal judge in Texas to strike down federal legislation passed last year that banned Huawei—by name—from selling telecommunications equipment to the federal government. Huawei argues that the legislation violates the Constitution's rule against bills of attainder, laws that single out particular people for punishment.

Congress passed the most recent National Defense Authorization Act last August; Huawei launched its legal challenge against the law in March. The company filed a motion for summary judgment in the case on Tuesday. This is a motion that asks the judge to rule on the legal merits in the case prior to the discovery phase, when the two parties get to demand documents from one another to help them build their cases. Huawei hopes to avoid discovery because it could drag on for many months while Huawei is frozen out of competing for federal telecommunications business.

The ban passed last year empowers the Secretary of Defense to ban companies from supplying equipment to the federal government—or contractors using federal funds—if he determines they have ties to the Chinese government. Companies put on this list have an opportunity to appeal the decision to the courts.

But the law singles two companies out by name for special treatment—Huawei and ZTE. These two companies are subject to a perpetual ban on competing for federal business with no provision for judicial review. And that, Huawei argues, violates the US Constitution.

Huawei's legal brief points to a number of past examples when the courts have struck down legislation that singled out particular individuals or groups. For example, in 1946 the Supreme Court struck down wartime legislation zeroing out the salaries of three specific, named government employees with communist sympathies. While Congress has the power to decide how to spend taxpayer money, the high court ruled, that couldn't justify legislation that was clearly designed to punish the men for their past associations or conduct.

Huawei argues that exactly the same reasoning applies in its own case. During last year's debate over the NDAA, sponsors of the legislation made it clear that their goal was to punish Huawei for allegedly stealing American technology and conspiring with the Chinese government.

Huawei and ZTE "have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and at this point I think the only fitting punishment would be to give them the death penalty-that is, to put them out of business in the United States," said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) last June.

But Huawei argues that the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to unilaterally single out individuals or companies for punishment. To exclude Huawei or ZTE from federal contracts, Congress must pass a law providing general criteria for excluding companies from competing for federal business—and then let the executive and judicial branches sort out which companies meet the criteria. Indeed, that's how the law treats every company other than ZTE and Huawei, and Huawei argues that it is entitled to the same due process.

The 2018 legislation challenged by this Huawei lawsuit is separate from a recent decision by the Trump administration to ban US companies from supplying Huawei with American-made technology. The Trump administration's move may pose a more serious threat to Huawei because Huawei depends on a number of US-made technologies, especially software. </s> Huawei has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, claiming that its efforts to block the Chinese company from selling telecom equipment to federal agencies and other parties is unconstitutional. Huawei made the announcement at a press conference in Shenzhen, and executives read their prepared statements off of Huawei’s Mate X foldable smartphone.

The lawsuit was filed in Plano, Texas, where Huawei’s U.S. headquarters is based. The U.S. government has alleged for some time that the Chinese government could use Huawei’s telecommunications equipment to spy on U.S. networks, which is why it has gone so far as to persuade other governments to ban Huawei products. It has even disrupted a potential deal between Huawei and AT&T in 2018, where the carrier would sell the Chinese company’s smartphones. Huawei has repeatedly denied these allegations, and an executive at the press conference said the company “has not and will never implant any backdoors.”

Huawei’s biggest complaint is that the U.S. government has “never provided any evidence that Huawei poses a cyber security threat.” The company said it was left with no choice but to issue the lawsuit, which focuses on a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act. The provision specifically bans government agencies from purchasing telecommunications equipment from not just Huawei, but also ZTE. If you recall, ZTE was banned from the U.S. for most of 2018, but the ban has since lifted and it’s able to work with U.S. suppliers again.

The U.S. Justice Department recently accused Huawei of stealing trade secrets, and also accused the company of doing business with Iran despite U.S. sanctions. These charges were made in an effort to extradite Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s chief financial officer, who was arrested and detained in Canada. A hearing is set to take place on May 8 to determine whether Wanzhou will face charges in the U.S.

Huawei has slowly been trying to repair its image in the U.S. — it placed full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal last week titled, “Don’t believe everything you hear.”

“I am writing to you in the hopes that we can come to understand each other better,” Catherine Chen. director of the board at Huawei, wrote in the open letter. “In recent years, the US government has developed some misunderstandings about us. We would like to draw your attention to the facts.”

The letter goes on to mention the 170 countries and regions Huawei operates in, the company’s history, and the types of services it provides. </s> Huawei said it had filed a complaint in a federal court in Texas challenging Section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed into law by U.S. President Donald Trump in August, which bars federal agencies and their contractors from procuring its equipment and services.

The lawsuit marks the latest confrontation between China and the United States, which spent most of 2018 slapping import tariffs on billions of dollars worth of each other's goods. The year ended with the arrest of Huawei's chief financial officer (CFO) in Canada at U.S. request, to the consternation of China.

Long before Trump initiated the trade war, Huawei's activities were under scrutiny by U.S. authorities, according to interviews with 10 people familiar with the Huawei probes and documents related to the investigations seen by Reuters.

"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," Huawei Rotating Chairman Guo Ping said in a statement.

"This ban not only is unlawful, but also restricts Huawei from engaging in fair competition, ultimately harming U.S. consumers. We look forward to the court's verdict."

While Huawei had very little share of the U.S. market before the bill, it is the world's biggest telecoms gear maker and is seeking to be at the forefront of a global roll-out of fifth generation (5G) mobile networks and services.

In its lawsuit, Huawei said its "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 privately owned firm has embarked on a public relations and legal offensive as Washington lobbies allies to abandon Huawei when building 5G networks, centring on a 2017 Chinese law requiring companies cooperate with national intelligence work.

"The U.S. Government is sparing no effort to smear the company and mislead the public," said Guo in a news briefing at Huawei's headquarters in southern China.

The NDAA bans the U.S. government from doing business with Huawei or compatriot peer ZTE Corp or from doing business with any company that has equipment from the two firms as a "substantial or essential component" of their system.

In its lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, Huawei argues that the section in question is illegal because it could sharply limit the company's ability to do business in the United States despite no proof of wrongdoing.

The lawsuit also alleges that Huawei has been denied due process and that Congress, by stripping Huawei of commercial opportunities, has violated the "separation of powers" portion of the constitution by doing the work of the courts.

Some legal experts, however, said Huawei's lawsuit is likely to be dismissed because U.S. courts are reluctant to second-guess national security determinations by other branches of government.

The lawsuit "will be an uphill battle because Congress has broad authority to protect us from perceived national security threats," said Franklin Turner, a government contracts lawyer at McCarter & English.

In November 2018, a federal appeals court rejected a similar lawsuit filed by Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab, which was challenging a ban on the use of its software in U.S. government networks.

The Texas court hearing Huawei's case will not be bound by that decision, but will likely adopt its reasoning because of similarities in the two disputes, said Steven Schwinn, a professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago.

"I don't see how (Huawei) can really escape that result," said Schwinn.

Huawei's chief legal officer, Song Liuping, said the two cases were different in terms of evidence and scope, and that the Chinese firm's case had "full merits".

If a judge decides Huawei has a plausible claim the case will proceed to the discovery phase, in which internal documents are shared and U.S. government officials could be forced to provide testimony and lay out their security concerns.

The legal action compares with a more restrained response in December emphasising "trust in justice" after the arrest of CFO Sabrina Meng Wanzhou.

Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei later said Meng's arrest was politically motivated and "not acceptable".

Meng - Ren's daughter - is accused by the United States of bank and wire fraud related to breaches of trade sanctions against Iran. Canada approved extradition proceedings on March 1, but Meng has since sued Canada's government for procedural wrongs in her arrest. The next court hearing is set for May 8.

The case strained Canada's relations with China, which this week accused two arrested Canadians of stealing state secrets and blocked Canadian canola imports.

Meng is under house arrest in Vancouver. It is unclear where the two Canadians are being detained in China, and at least one does not have access to legal representation, sources previously told Reuters.
Huawei files for a summary judgment, seeking to expedite its March lawsuit against the U.S. Government, challenging the constitutionality of Section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act that bans U.S. executive government agencies from procuring Huawei and ZTE telecommunications equipment based on national security.