The U.S. Department of Commerce is asking for FedEx’s lawsuit on export rules to be dismissed, arguing FedEx’s need to comply with those rules isn’t something the courts should decide.

FedEx sued the U.S. Department of Commerce in June in hopes of stopping it from enforcing certain export rules related to national security and foreign policy concerns against it.

FedEx said complying with Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which includes an “Entity List” restricting U.S. companies from doing business with listed parties, puts “an impossible burden” on it as it handles some 15 million packages daily.

But exempting FedEx and similar companies from those regulations “would require considering potential risks to national security and foreign policy interests,” the Department of Commerce said in its motion to dismiss the case, filed Tuesday.

“Such controls help prevent foreign adversaries, whether hostile nations, sponsors of terrorism, or agents of foreign intelligence services, from obtaining the weapons, technology, parts, and materials that might prove to the detriment of U.S. security and foreign policy interests,” Commerce said of its export regulations.

Can FedEx win the lawsuit?:Case tests familiar question of exports

Questioning the necessity of those export controls “is reserved to the Executive and Legislative Branches,” not the court, according to Commerce’s motion to dismiss filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

If FedEx delivers an item that clashes with the Department of Commerce’s regulations, the company can be fined $250,000 “without any due process,” CEO Fred Smith said in a Fox News interview earlier this year.

The company said it paid a $500,000 penalty plus interest in 2017 after being charged with violations.

Commerce said if “the regulations advance a legitimate government interest” like the EAR does, it doesn’t matter if it might hinder FedEx. Commerce argues that the company’s due process claim “reduces to a policy complaint,” not a constitutional violation.

Commerce also says in its motion that requiring companies like FedEx to comply is better for security. It says that the requirements reduce “the extent to which sensitive and dangerous items reach potential bad actors,” as FedEx must reject shipments in violation.

“It is inevitable that some exporters, intentionally or not, will attempt to ship items prohibited by the EAR, and requiring intermediaries to comply with the regulations makes it less likely that such attempts will be successful,” Commerce said.

As of Wednesday afternoon, FedEx had not yet filed a response to the motion to dismiss.

Max Garland covers FedEx, logistics and health care for The Commercial Appeal. Reach him at max.garland@commercialappeal.com or 901-529-2651 and on Twitter @MaxGarlandTypes.