> First, the bar covers actions "under such authority"—meaning actions that exceed the statute's grant fall outside it entirely.
The authority, which is omitted in the article, is likely the subsection entitled "Authority". Who woulda thought. (a) Authority.—…(1) carry out a covered procurement action; and (2) limit, notwithstanding any other provision of law, in whole or in part, the disclosure of information relating to the basis…. There is no mention of "was built to address foreign adversary threats to the IT supply chain" in the aforementioned authority. The rest reminds me of sovereign citizen arguments: good luck lol this is about military procurement.
> "Adversary" is undefined, but
This holds more water. Too bad the court will be prevented from reviewing the underlying record with which to decide, for a coequal branch, who are adversaries. And unlike IEEPA, their declarations are not in the Constitution.
> Pretext
The underlying record, and their decision to "limit" disclosure (not "not to disclose"), is unreviewable.
> the required findings don't hold up
Dang, ignorance of "no action … shall be subject to review" is doing real work. It does not matter if only the record cannot be reviewed. If a court cannot review the information, it cannot make contrary decisions.
> Based on the public record, it's unclear
First section summary. This is an X post.
> First, the bar covers actions "under such authority"—meaning actions that exceed the statute's grant fall outside it entirely.
The authority, which is omitted in the article, is likely the subsection entitled "Authority". Who woulda thought. (a) Authority.—…(1) carry out a covered procurement action; and (2) limit, notwithstanding any other provision of law, in whole or in part, the disclosure of information relating to the basis…. There is no mention of "was built to address foreign adversary threats to the IT supply chain" in the aforementioned authority. The rest reminds me of sovereign citizen arguments: good luck lol this is about military procurement.
> "Adversary" is undefined, but
This holds more water. Too bad the court will be prevented from reviewing the underlying record with which to decide, for a coequal branch, who are adversaries. And unlike IEEPA, their declarations are not in the Constitution.
> Pretext
The underlying record, and their decision to "limit" disclosure (not "not to disclose"), is unreviewable.
> the required findings don't hold up
Dang, ignorance of "no action … shall be subject to review" is doing real work. It does not matter if only the record cannot be reviewed. If a court cannot review the information, it cannot make contrary decisions.
I doubt this will end up in court. It is not a legal matter but rather political/PR posturing on both sides.
Lawsuits are posturing. Nowadays opening briefs read more like polemics.