US Court Orders Reconsideration of DJI Military List Designation
Crhk · 3 SOURCESabout 2 hours ago2 MIN
Summary
A US federal appeals court has directed a lower court to reconsider its ruling that upheld the Department of Defense's decision to place DJI Innovations on a list of Chinese military companies. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found deficiencies in how the Pentagon justified including the drone manufacturer on the 2022 blacklist. DJI, which has consistently denied ties to the Chinese military, filed a lawsuit in 2024 seeking removal from the list, but a federal judge dismissed the case in September. The appeals court has now remanded the case for further proceedings.
Key Points
- The US Department of Defense added DJI Innovations to its Chinese military companies list in 2022
- DJI filed a federal lawsuit in 2024 demanding removal from the blacklist, asserting it is not controlled by the Chinese military
- A federal district court judge rejected DJI's request in September 2024, prompting the company to appeal the decision
- The D.C. Circuit Court found the Pentagon provided no public explanation for the listing and relied improperly on unclassified documents
- The appeals court ruled lower courts cannot solely use non-classified materials to establish DJI contributed to China's defense industrial base
Why It Matters
This ruling could affect hundreds of US companies and government agencies that have faced restrictions or bans on purchasing DJI drones due to the blacklist designation. The court's emphasis on transparency in government listings may set a precedent for how US agencies designate foreign companies as national security concerns, potentially requiring more detailed public justifications in future cases.
This ruling could affect hundreds of US companies and government agencies that have faced restrictions or bans on purchasing DJI drones due to the blacklist designation. The court's emphasis on transparency in government listings may set a precedent for how US agencies designate foreign companies as national security concerns, potentially requiring more detailed public justifications in future cases.