Is It Wrong for Trump to Intervene in Huawei Case?
New York legal scholars disagree about whether it would be improper for President Trump to get involved in the Huawei case.
December 13, 2018 at 09:43 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
What kind of message would President Donald Trump be sending to global businesses if he were to intervene in the U.S. Department of Justice's criminal case against Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and its chief financial officer?
The question, which is ripe with trade and policy implications, began circulating Tuesday, when Reuters reported that Trump had said that his desire to reach a trade deal with China could spur him to wade into the DOJ's investigation of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou. She is the daughter of Huawei's founder.
“If I think it's good for what will be certainly the largest trade deal ever made—which is a very important thing—what's good for national security—I would certainly intervene if I thought it was necessary,” Trump said.
Trump floated the possibility of intervening in the Huawei case on the same day that Meng was released on $10 million bail in Canada. She was arrested Dec. 1 in Vancouver at the request of U.S. authorities, who want to extradite Meng to face fraud charges alleging that she used a subsidiary of Huawei called SkyCom to evade American sanctions on Iran.
Some legal analysts are saying that Trump's apparent willingness to step between Meng and the DOJ would show that she was simply a “bargaining chip” in the U.S.-China trade war—contradicting assertions from Trump administration officials that the criminal case against Huawei is not political.
Rebecca Roiphe, a professor at the New York Law School who has written about the DOJ's independence from the president and the level of control he can exert over federal prosecutors, said that it would be “improper and arguably illegal for the president to intervene in the Huawei case.”
She said the president should convey his foreign policy concerns to prosecutors and step back. If he were to get involved, it would send the message that the “values expressed in [U.S.] criminal sanctions law are more flexible than at first they would seem.”
“What looked like a strict prohibition now looks like something that might be bargained or exchanged,” she added.
But another legal scholar, Robert Howse, a professor of international law at the New York University School of Law, suggested that the hand-wringing over Trump's comment is overblown. He wrote in an email that “in some cases, amnesties or forbearance of normal criminal procedures for high policy reasons could be justified.”
“It is important to be blunt about it though, as Trump was,” he added. “If overriding policy interests are what is at issue in such forms of leniency or forbearance, this should be done transparently, rather than pretending there were purely legal reasons.”
Trump established earlier this year that he isn't exactly shy about stepping in to help Chinese companies accused of running afoul of U.S. laws in order to further trade relations. Over the objections of lawmakers in his own party, Trump worked out a controversial deal to lift a seven-year export ban that would have prevented Chinese telecom ZTE Corp. from using U.S. products and was viewed as a death knell for the company.
“Here we have another circumstance where the same thing could happen,” said Richard Matheny, a litigation partner at Goodwin Procter in Washington, D.C. “It's another gambit in a high-stakes chess game between two superpowers.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Will Trump Be a Boost to Quinn Emanuel's Fortunes in China?
- 2Mayer Brown’s Hong Kong Split to Take Effect
- 3Simpson Thacher Launches in Luxembourg With Hires From A&O Shearman, Clifford Chance
- 4How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 5Big Firms May See 'Uncomfortable Flashbacks' as Cost Pressure Grows
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250