For a second time, the U.S. government filed a motion in federal court on July 11 to dismiss a lawsuit by an affiliate of a Chinese construction equipment company that claims it was not afforded due process following the termination of its purchase of four Oregon wind farms last year.
In September 2012, President Obama revoked Ralls Corp.'s purchase of four wind farm projects in Oregon, which are located in the vicinity of a U.S. naval facility's restricted airspace.
Obama, acting on a recommendation from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), issued an order prohibiting the acquisition and ownership of the wind farms by Ralls Corp. and directed the company to divest the interest it acquired in the farms this year.
In his decision, Obama said, ‘There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that Ralls Corp; the Sany Group, a Chinese company affiliated with Ralls; Dawei Duan and Jialing Wu might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States.’
Ralls Corp. is owned by Dawei Duan and Jialiang Wu, executives at Chinese manufacturer Sany Group. According to Ralls, the company's primary business purpose is to develop wind energy products for wind turbines manufactured by Sany.
Ralls contends that Obama acted in an unlawful and unauthorized manner and that ‘CFIUS and the president have unconstitutionally deprived Ralls of its property absent due process. And by unfairly and unjustly singling out Ralls for differential treatment compared to similarly situated parties, CFIUS and the president have violated Ralls's right to equal protection of the law.’
In a statement following today's hearing, Ralls wrote, ‘At no time has Ralls received any notice of the government's concerns purportedly arising from Ralls' March 2012 purchase of four small wind farms in Oregon. And Ralls did not have any meaningful opportunity to rebut those concerns. Vague 'national security' interests, as the Supreme Court has firmly established, do not grant the government a blank check to ignore constitutional due process.
‘Ralls seeks only what the Constitution provides and justice demands: notice of the government's reasons for its actions and an opportunity meaningfully to respond to those reasons. Ralls is grateful for the opportunity to make its case to the court and is confident that the rule of law will be upheld.’