Constitutional Opinion No. 2026-0907
Case Information
- Source
- congress.gov / U.S. Government Publishing Office (BILLS-115s3085es)
- Author
- 115th Congress
- Publication Date
- 2018-12-18
- Content Type
- Legal / Normative Text
- Opinion Issued
- 2026-07-22
- AFCS Version
- 1.0
Holding
A serious national-security measure giving the government authority to keep adversary technology out of its systems — the framework under which Huawei, ZTE, Kaspersky and their like have been excluded from federal IT/telecom — scoring solidly in the aligned band for defending sovereignty and strength at the supply-chain frontier, tempered lightly by the due-process cost of curtailed judicial review. A Federal Acquisition Security Council plus exclusion/removal-order authority across civilian, defense, and intelligence systems. It advances peace through strength in the domain that has become decisive — a government running on untrusted hardware/software is already compromised (XVI); protective sovereignty over government systems and the citizen data they hold, as in the DeepSeek matter 0874, now built into acquisition law (II); trusted supply chains over adversary dependence (XIII); and the integrity of the systems government runs on (XVIII). Disciplined: exclusion may not rest solely on foreign ownership of an otherwise-qualified source (risk-based, not blindly protectionist), and the gravest orders go to accountable Cabinet-level officials. One honest consideration priced on the constitutional order (XVII, mild): judicial review is sharply curtailed — largely unreviewable actions, and a challenger cannot see the classified evidence (D.C. Circuit ex parte) — a real due-process cost, weighed lightly as a largely-justified national-security feature with some review preserved. No Rule 6 trigger. Legal/Normative Text (85/15), no JI. Mostly America First (78).
It is the judgment of this Court that Opinion No. 2026-0907 is hereby entered into the record, in accordance with the America First Constitutional Standard. The score stands. The reasoning is published. The record is public.