Anthropic PBC filed a petition on October 13, 2026 asking the U.S. Court docket docket of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to rehear a divided panel’s decision that upheld the Division of Battle’s designation of the artificial-intelligence agency as a national-security supply-chain menace.
The petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc was filed beneath Federal Rule of Appellate Course of 40 throughout the consolidated circumstances Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Division of Battle and runs 3,894 phrases in line with its certificates of compliance. It was signed by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP attorneys along with Kelly P. Dunbar, who argued the case for Anthropic.
The submitting challenges a September 25, 2026 judgment that denied Anthropic’s petitions for overview of the designation. Resolve Katsas wrote the court docket docket’s 43-page opinion for a panel that moreover included Judges Henderson and Rao, and Resolve Henderson dissented in an eight-page opinion; the clerk withheld issuance of the mandate the an identical day.
Background of the Designation
The Division of Battle designated Anthropic a supply-chain menace beneath the Federal Acquisition Present Chain Security Act of 2018 after the company refused to remove contractual prohibitions on using its Claude fashions for lethal autonomous warfare and mass surveillance of Individuals. As a result of the petition recounts, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei met Secretary of Battle Pete Hegseth on February 24, 2026, and Hegseth demanded that Anthropic accept an “all lawful makes use of” contract time interval by February 27. On February 27, 2026, President Trump ordered all companies to immediately cease using Anthropic’s experience, and Hegseth launched the designation decision on social media whereas directing Anthropic to take care of providing Claude to the Division for as a lot as six months.
Hegseth issued the formal dedication on March 3, 2026, and the Division notified Anthropic the subsequent day. Anthropic petitioned the D.C. Circuit for overview on March 9, 2026. After Hegseth denied reconsideration on June 3, 2026, a second petition was consolidated with the first on June 24, 2026.
Statutory and Procedural Challenges
The petition first challenges the majority’s interpretation of the statute, which defines supply-chain menace to include the hazard that a person may sabotage, maliciously introduce undesirable carry out, extract info, or “in another case manipulate” a coated article. Consistent with the petition, the majority study “in another case manipulate” to suggest arrange, operate, or administration regardless of any subversive intent, so that the statute “prompts what Anthropic does, not why Anthropic does it.” Anthropic argues that learning conflicts with the Supreme Court docket docket’s 2024 decision in Fischer v. United States, beneath which an “in another case” clause takes which means from the exact phrases that precede it.
The petition argues the majority’s learning has no limiting principle because of every contractor arranges, operates, or controls its merchandise. It quotes Resolve Henderson’s dissent for the proposition that contractors now face a stark various: “Adjust to the Secretary’s requires or menace being designated a nationwide security menace.” The petition moreover contends the majority improperly sustained the designation on a rationale the Secretary did not invoke: the Secretary had solid Anthropic as a “hostile event” with a motive to disrupt U.S. military operations, whereas the majority found “no trigger to doubt” Anthropic’s “noble intentions.” Under the Supreme Court docket docket’s 2015 decision in Michigan v. EPA, the petition argues, courts may uphold firm movement solely on grounds the corporate itself invoked.
The statute requires pre-designation uncover and an opportunity to answer, which the petition says the Secretary bypassed by invoking an urgent nationwide security curiosity in a single conclusory sentence. The petition states that the majority deemed the procedural violations harmless because of earlier course of “would not have affected” the Secretary’s decision. Anthropic argues that the regulation’s judicial-review provision, which directions that the court docket docket “shall preserve unlawful” coated actions taken in defiance of required procedures, leaves no room for a judge-made harmless-error rule. The petition cites the Supreme Court docket docket’s 2026 decision in Trump v. Put together dinner, which held that an movement taken with out required course of was void from the start, and its 2001 decision in Alabama v. Bozeman.
Constitutional Claims and Pending Posture
On due course of, the petition argues that D.C. Circuit precedent requires uncover and an opportunity to answer sooner than a national-security designation, even for putative abroad terrorist organizations, absent a displaying of particularized need. It cites the court docket docket’s 2001 Nationwide Council of Resistance of Iran decision, its 2010 People’s Mojahedin Group of Iran decision, its 2014 Ralls decision on foreign-investment overview, and its 2026 Hesai decision. The petition argues the Division’s conduct belies any pressing need for fast movement, because of the Division had prolonged recognized of Anthropic’s safety commitments, saved negotiating after the dedication, and saved Claude in military operations for as a lot as six months. It moreover states the designation rested on a declare, later abandoned, that Anthropic might alter or shut off Claude after deployment on categorized applications.
On the First Modification, the petition states that the majority agreed Anthropic engaged in protected expression and suffered antagonistic movement however found no causal connection between the two, discounting Hegseth’s social media submit that accused Anthropic of “sanctimonious rhetoric” and “virtue-signaling” and criticized its “ideology.” The petition notes that on August 27, 2026, the U.S. District Court docket docket for the Northern District of California held {{that a}} parallel supply-chain designation issued beneath a separate Safety Division statute was a direct response to Anthropic’s public rejection of the Division’s contracting place, and situated “direct proof that Anthropic’s speech” significantly motivated that designation. The petition describes the two outcomes as irreconcilable constitutional rulings on related designations issued by the an identical Secretary on the an identical day.
The petition moreover notes that the D.C. Circuit’s jurisdiction over challenges beneath the 2018 regulation is exclusive, which it says leaves the panel decision as a result of the ultimate phrase wanting Supreme Court docket docket overview, and that fifteen amicus briefs, from commerce associations, former national-security officers, 149 former judges, civil-liberties organizations, and AI professionals, had been filed throughout the case. The court docket docket’s docket reveals the rehearing petition was served and entered on October 13, 2026, and that the clerk’s order withholding the mandate has stood since September 25, 2026.
