Skip to content
Anthropic v. DoW

Law

What courts have decided, what Anthropic has pleaded, and the doctrinal questions the case puts in play. The per-issue detail pages live under /issues/[slug] for deep-linking.

Holdings

Court rulings in this matter so far, reverse-chronological.

D.C. Cir. · May 21, 2026

Order for supplemental briefing

Panel: Henderson, Katsas, Rao

Following the May 19 oral argument, the panel ordered supplemental briefs (not to exceed 2,500 words). Originally due May 28; extended to June 4 on joint motion. The order is consistent with the panel actively working through one or more of the three pre-ordered argument issues.

Filings & sources

  1. 1.OrderPer Curiam Order for supplemental briefing · D.C. Cir. No. 26-1049, May 21, 2026 · source-docs/dccir-01208852327.pdf
  2. 2.OrderPer Curiam Order granting extension to June 4 · D.C. Cir. No. 26-1049 · source-docs/dccir-01208852954.pdf
  3. 3.FilingOral argument minute entry (May 19, 2026) · D.C. Cir. No. 26-1049 · source-docs/dccir-01208851556.pdf

9th Cir. · April 27, 2026

Order staying appellate proceedings

Government's unopposed motion to stay the interlocutory appeal granted. Appeal is dormant pending resolution of D.C. Cir. No. 26-1049. Government must move for relief within 21 days after the D.C. Cir. resolves the parallel case.

Filings & sources

  1. 1.OrderOrder Staying Proceedings · 9th Cir. No. 26-2011, Apr. 27, 2026 · source-docs/ca9-17.pdf
  2. 2.FilingGovernment's motion to stay · 9th Cir. No. 26-2011, Apr. 22, 2026 · source-docs/ca9-13.pdf

D.C. Cir. · April 20, 2026

Per curiam order denying motion for emergency stay

Panel: Wilkins, Katsas, Rao

Anthropic's emergency stay motion denied per curiam. Decision is procedural rather than a merits signal. The FASCSA designation accordingly remains in some operational effect during the pendency of the petition, subject to Anthropic's parallel § 3252 injunction in N.D. Cal.

Filings & sources

  1. 1.OrderPer Curiam Order denying emergency stay · D.C. Cir. No. 26-1049, Apr. 20, 2026
  2. 2.FilingAnthropic's emergency motion for stay · D.C. Cir. No. 26-1049, Mar. 11, 2026 · source-docs/dccir-01208829653.pdf
  3. 3.FilingGovernment's response in opposition · D.C. Cir. No. 26-1049, Mar. 19, 2026 · source-docs/dccir-01208832389.pdf
  4. 4.FilingAnthropic's reply · D.C. Cir. No. 26-1049, Mar. 23, 2026 · source-docs/dccir-01208833581.pdf

N.D. Cal. · March 26, 2026

Order granting motion for preliminary injunction

Judge Rita F. Lin · Dkt. 134, 135

Preliminary injunction granted against all named Defendant Agencies and Secretary Hegseth. The order restores the status quo as of February 27, 2026, by enjoining the Presidential Directive, the Hegseth Directive's contractor blacklist, and the 10 U.S.C. § 3252 Supply Chain Designation. The Hegseth Directive and Supply Chain Designation are also stayed under 5 U.S.C. § 705. Bond: $100. Seven-day administrative stay (expired April 2, 2026). EOP not enjoined for lack of record evidence of implementing action.

Theories

Key quotes

"Reading "supply chain risk" to reach a vendor's negotiating posture would make Section 3252's restrictions on the Secretary's discretion meaningless."

"The Court is not required to "exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free." (citing Dep't of Commerce v. New York)"

Filings & sources

  1. 1.OpinionPI Order · Dkt. 134, N.D. Cal., Mar. 26, 2026 · source-docs/ndcal-134.pdf
  2. 2.OrderPreliminary Injunction · Dkt. 135, N.D. Cal., Mar. 26, 2026 · source-docs/ndcal-135.pdf
  3. 3.FilingAnthropic's motion for TRO, PI, and § 705 stay · Dkt. 6, N.D. Cal., Mar. 9, 2026 · source-docs/ndcal-6.pdf
  4. 4.FilingGovernment's opposition · Dkt. 96, N.D. Cal., Mar. 17, 2026 · source-docs/ndcal-96.pdf
  5. 5.FilingAnthropic's reply · Dkt. 113, N.D. Cal., Mar. 20, 2026 · source-docs/ndcal-113.pdf

Claims

The five counts in Anthropic's complaint, with status at PI and current status.

  1. Count I

    APA — 10 U.S.C. § 3252 Supply Chain Designation

    APA challenge to the 10 U.S.C. § 3252 Supply Chain Designation as in excess of statutory authority, contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious.

    Defendants
    Hegseth, Department of War
    At PI
    Likelihood of success found on all three subsections of § 706(2).
    Now
    Cross-MSJ briefing through July 2026; PI in force.

    On this count

  2. Count II

    APA — Hegseth Directive

    APA challenge to the contractor-blacklist language of the February 27 Hegseth Directive as in excess of statutory authority.

    Defendants
    Hegseth, Department of War
    At PI
    Found ultra vires after government conceded no statutory authority and "absolutely no legal effect."
    Now
    PI in force; final disposition pending MSJ.

  3. Count III

    Fifth Amendment procedural due process

    Procedural due process challenge to all three Challenged Actions — depriving Anthropic of a protected liberty interest in federal-contracting eligibility and reputation without pre-deprivation notice or opportunity to respond.

    Defendants
    All Defendants
    At PI
    Likelihood of success found under Mathews v. Eldridge; "reputation plus" test (Trifax, Old Dominion Dairy) satisfied.
    Now
    PI in force.

    On this count

  4. Count IV

    First Amendment retaliation (alt. viewpoint discrimination)

    First Amendment retaliation under Arizona Students' Ass'n / Hartman v. Moore; alternative theory of viewpoint discrimination.

    Defendants
    All Defendants
    At PI
    Likelihood of success found on retaliation theory; alternative viewpoint theory not reached.
    Now
    PI in force; viewpoint theory remains open for MSJ.

    On this count

  5. Count V

    Ultra vires — Presidential Directive

    Ultra vires challenge to the February 27 Presidential Directive as in excess of statutory and constitutional authority.

    Defendants
    Trump, Executive Office of the President
    At PI
    Not reached. Three independent merits problems already supported the PI.
    Now
    Remains open for summary judgment.

    On this count

Issues

One-paragraph orientation for each doctrinal question the case puts in play; click through for the full per-issue treatment.

  • First Amendment retaliation

    Arizona Students' Ass'n v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2016) — three-prong test: (1) protected activity; (2) chilling effect; (3) protected activity was a substantial motivating factor. Burden shifts under Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), to defendant to show it would have taken the action regardless.

  • Fifth Amendment procedural due process

    Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) — three-factor balancing of private interest, risk of erroneous deprivation, and government interest.

  • APA — Supply Chain Designation (10 U.S.C. § 3252)

    APA § 706(2)(A), (C), (D). Statutory authority must come from the text of § 3252, which targets risk that an "adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert" a covered system.

  • Ultra vires — Presidential Directive

    Equitable cause of action available against executive officials acting beyond statutory or constitutional authority — Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949); American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94 (1902). Distinct from APA review and not subject to APA preclusion provisions.

  • D.C. Cir. jurisdiction under 41 U.S.C. § 1327

    FASCSA (41 U.S.C. § 4713) — Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act. Provides 30 days' notice, opportunity to respond, interagency review, and direct judicial review in the D.C. Circuit under 41 U.S.C. § 1327 over "covered procurement actions."

  • Webster v. Doe and constitutional carveouts

    Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) — even broad statutory preclusion-of-review provisions are read not to preclude constitutional claims unless Congress clearly intends to do so.

  • Bill of Attainder (Koh et al.)

    U.S. Const. art. I, §§ 9 cl. 3 and 10 cl. 1.

  • Pretext under Department of Commerce v. New York

    Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U.S. 752 (2019) — courts "are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free." Even where an agency has statutory authority, courts must reject action where the stated rationale is a "contrived" pretext for the actual motive.