Amid the growing concern about the international threats to the protection of classified information, trade secrets, and intellectual property, Congress passed the Cybersecurity Enforcement Act of 2019. The legislative history and congressional findings explained the background:

The Act was passed to address concerns that improved quantum computers can process at speeds to render the current modes of data encryption ineffective. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer can try all the numerical combinations so fast, that the machines can overwhelm encryptions systems used in most commercial and government agencies.

Presently such devices cost millions of dollars each, but that cost will drop dramatically as the technology becomes more stable and prevalent. These machines are highly sought by academic institutions, research labs, and corporations for their vast computational power and the ability to solve highly complex questions. Companies and institutions with access to these machines are destined to become the leaders in their fields of finance, engineering, and science.

Section 170 of the Act makes it a federal offense to use a quantum computer to disable or circumvent the encryption on a computer file, unless the decryption is done either under the authority of the owner of the computer file, pursuant to a warrant in a criminal proceeding, or pursuant to a subpoena issued in a civil matter. No legal challenge has been brought under this provision.

Another provision of the comprehensive legislation, however, has raised concerns. Section 175(a) of the Act provides that "no person shall own, use, sell, or offer for sale a quantum computer without a permit issued by the Department of Homeland Security." Additional provisions of the Act provide that the regulations of the Department of Homeland Security will require that the agency issue a license to any applicant provided that the applicant has put sufficient safeguards in place to stop the use of the machine for encryption hacking. Applicants can also be denied if the Department of Homeland Security determines that the license applicant has or may use the device to break encryption protections.

As soon as the regulations were lawfully issued by the Department of Homeland Security, a number of groups objected to the rules. The Silicon Tech Association, a trade association of major computer companies brought suit alleging that the regulations subjected its members to significant additional costs to buy and sell the next generations of binary computer and quantum computers. The Association claims the Act would tend to depress the entire computing marketplace.

Separately, Miami Tech University brought suit against the Department of Homeland Security after the university was denied a permit to acquire a quantum computer. The Department of Homeland Security identified prior use of the Miami Tech supercomputer as the source of significant hacking attacks. The Department found that Miami Tech had not changed its procedures regarding anonymous use of its computer resources, such that unnamed faculty, students, or members of the public could gain access to the proposed quantum computer and use it to launch unauthorized anti-encryption attacks. The Department refused to issue the permit until Miami Tech demonstrated that it had put sufficient safety protocols in place to thwart the anonymous, prohibited use of the devices. The University believes the requirements are unconstitutional and has sought to declare the law unenforceable.

Please discuss the constitutional challenges to Section 175(a) of the Cybersecurity Enforcement Act of 2019 brought in the two separate lawsuits by the Silicon Tech Association and by Miami Tech University in an outline. (Do not discuss free speech or other claims not yet addressed in the course.)

• I need help compiling an IRAC for my essay please