Skip to the main content.
Free Case Review




green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



4 min read

The Legal Battle: Changji Esquel Textile vs. US Department of Commerce


The Allegations of Noncompliance with the Administrative Procedure Act

The Department of Commerce's decision to place Changji on the Entity List ignited a firestorm of legal proceedings, ultimately culminating in an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). As the case unfolded, the ALJ was tasked with carefully assessing the evidence and applying the relevant legal principles to determine whether the Department's decision to include Changji on the list was lawful.

At the core of the plaintiffs' argument was an allegation that the Department of Commerce had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a cornerstone of administrative law that governs the procedures followed by federal agencies when making decisions. The plaintiffs contended that the Department's decision was arbitrary and capricious, lacking the requisite factual and legal basis.

The Invocation of Fifth Amendment Protections

Furthermore, the plaintiffs invoked the protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from depriving individuals of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law. They argued that their inclusion on the Entity List constituted a deprivation of property without the opportunity for a fair and meaningful hearing.

In their defense, the Department of Commerce relied on the substantial evidence standard, a bedrock principle of administrative law that requires reviewing courts to defer to an agency's factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. The Department contended that it had conducted a thorough investigation and had ample evidence to justify its decision.

The Impartial Evaluation by the ALJ and the Road to Judicial Review

The ALJ, acting as an impartial arbiter, weighed the arguments presented by both parties and evaluated the evidence before rendering a decision. This decision would not be the final word, as either party had the right to appeal the ALJ's decision to the Department's Appeals Council. In turn, the Appeals Council's ruling could be subject to judicial review in the federal district court.

The outcome of this case could have wide-ranging implications for future challenges to the Department of Commerce's decisions regarding the Entity List. It raises important questions about the scope of agency authority, the application of constitutional protections in administrative proceedings, and the proper standard of review for agency actions.

As appellate courts and the Supreme Court grapple with these issues, judicial precedent in administrative law continues to evolve. It is within this ever-changing legal landscape that the dispute between Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd. and the United States Department of Commerce unfolds, offering a glimpse into the complicated world of administrative law and the ALJ's pivotal role in the resolution of complex disputes.

The Plaintiffs' Allegations: Challenging the Defendants' Authority

The plaintiffs, encompassing Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd. and its affiliated entities, launched an exhaustive legal challenge against the defendants, asserting that the defendants had violated their statutory and regulatory authority by including Changji on the Entity List. Key to their argument was the contention that the defendants had failed to furnish "specific and articulable facts" justifying Changji's inclusion, thereby infringing upon their rights protected by the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA) and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Court's Denial of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction:

Urgently seeking respite, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, attempting to halt the enforcement of Changji's listing on the Entity List. However, after meticulous consideration, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.

Exploring Defendants' Authority under the ECRA:

To fully grasp the court's ruling, it is essential to delve into the intricacies of the defendants' power under the ECRA. This pivotal legislation empowers the United States Department of Commerce to regulate a diverse range of activities primarily focusing on export control. These regulatory activities encompass the development, implementation, and maintenance of control lists and licensing regimes finely tuned to manage the export of a wide array of items, technologies, and software.

The defendants justified their authority to add entities to the Entity List by citing the Export Administration Regulations (EARs), the principal export control regulations. These regulations explicitly stipulate that entities can be summarily listed if there is a reasonable belief that their activities pose a threat to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests.

Court's Analysis and Decision: Meticulous Statutory Interpretation

The court, with careful consideration of the plaintiffs' claims, ultimately concluded that the defendants' authority to add entities to the Entity List for national security reasons did not preclude their inclusion for other equally compelling and valid reasons, including human rights violations.

Crucially, the court explicitly rejected the plaintiffs' argument positing that the defendants lacked the authority to list Changji for human rights violations. Drawing from the provisions of the ECRA, the court reasoned that the statute adequately authorized the defendants to take "any other action" deemed necessary for the effective execution of the law. Hence, the court concluded that the defendants' decision to include Changji on the Entity List was well within the legal bounds of their authority.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' contention regarding the defendants' alleged disregard of evidence highlighting Changji's ethical business practices. In its legal reasoning, the court construed this particular challenge as resembling an arbitrary-and-capricious claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, as the court pointed out, the ECRA effectively precluded it from entertaining such a challenge, subsequently leading to the rejection of the plaintiffs' argument.

Evaluation of Irreparable Injury and Balance of Harms:

Fully cognizant of the potential impact on the plaintiffs' businesses, the court diligently evaluated whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of suffering irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs argued that their businesses would suffer severe consequences without immediate relief, underscoring the gravitas of their plea through multiple declarations. However, the court made a notable decision not to delve into this aspect further, for the plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits rendered a deeper assessment unnecessary.

Refuting the Application of a Higher Standard of Review:

The court's analysis also addressed the plaintiffs' argument seeking a higher standard of review for the defendants' decision to list Changji on the Entity List. The plaintiffs contended that the court should apply a heightened level of scrutiny due to the potentially severe consequences of the listing. However, the court rejected this argument, reasoning that the ECRA provided the defendants with broad discretion in making such determinations. As a result, the court concluded that the defendants' decision was to be reviewed under the traditional arbitrary-and-capricious standard rather than a heightened standard of review.


In this captivating legal battle between Changji Esquel Textile and the United States Department of Commerce, the court's decision upheld the defendants' authority to include Changji on the Entity List. With a meticulous analysis of the applicable statutes and regulations, the court determined that the defendants had acted within their statutory bounds and had not violated the plaintiffs' rights. The court asserted that the defendants possessed the authority to include entities on the Entity List for national security reasons, as well as other valid considerations such as human rights violations. Ultimately, this legal confrontation serves as a testament to the complex and intricate nature of administrative law and its significance in safeguarding national interests and upholding ITAR Compliance.