Return to Washington Examiner Homepage
May 18, 2013 | 05:29 AM
politics
Washington D.C. weather
Politics: White House

Court lets stand Obama's China wind farm ban

February 22, 2013 | Modified: February 22, 2013 at 8:02 pm
Leave a comment

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge said Friday she can't overturn President Barack Obama's decision to revoke a Chinese company's purchase of four wind farm projects in the vicinity of a U.S. naval facility's restricted airspace.

However, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the Ralls Corporation has a right to a hearing over whether the White House should be forced to explain its decision.

In his September decision, Obama ordered Ralls Corporation, a company owned by Chinese nationals, to divest its interest in the wind farms it purchased earlier this year in Oregon. The wind farm sites are all in the vicinity of restricted air space near the Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman. The administration cites unspecified national security risks as the reason for blocking the transaction.

Ralls sued. Its CEO, Wu Jialiang, said in Beijing in October that his company would "never do anything that threatens U.S. national security."

Jackson said the federal courts don't have the power to get involved in the president's decision-making on this issue.

The law "is not the least bit ambiguous about the role of the courts: 'The actions of the president . . . and the findings of the president . . . shall not be subject to judicial review,'" she said.

However, Jackson said the courts can hold hearings on whether the government deprived Ralls of its property without due process of law. Ralls argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment entitles it to an opportunity to be heard and to hear the reasons for Obama's decision, she said.

"It is true that the finality provision will bar the court from hearing any attack on the president's findings," Jackson said. "But there is a difference between asking a court to decide whether one was entitled to know what the president's reasons were and asking a court to assess the sufficiency of those reasons."

Jackson said she will hear arguments on that issue later.

From WeeklyStandard.com

  • Responding to the Washington Post on Benghazi

    The Washington Post editorial board is quite upset with “ Republicans and conservative media obsessed ” with the “phony” issue of the administration’s misleading public explanation of...

    Read More...

  • What About the Video?

    So, what about the video? The White House last week released nearly 100 pages of emails detailing some of the discussions within the Obama administration that resulted in major revisions to...

    Read More...

  • Thomas Perez Makes a Deal

    On November 7, 2011, the Supreme Court decided to hear Magner v. Gallagher , a case about racial discrimination in housing. Oral argument was scheduled for February 29, 2012. But shortly...

    Read More...