Anthropic sued; a federal court struck down the measures, and appeals remain live
What it supports — reasoning (Dkt. 250)a grant of summary judgment for Anthropic on First Amendment retaliation, Fifth Amendment due process and the Administrative Procedure Act (including exceeding authority under 10 U.S.C. § 3252 and 5 U.S.C. § 558(b)); the court rejected the ultra vires separation-of-powers claim and entered judgment for the government as to agencies that took no relevant action or only interim measures. Its language includes “the challenged actions constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of the First Amendment” and “the empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics”; page 59 states that “an order addressing relief will issue separately”.
Where the evidence stopsThe two orders are directly confirmed. On the position after 27 August 2026: a dated docket check on 9 September 2026 found no appeal of the judgment visible in the consulted snapshot and the D.C. Circuit case still pending. That rests on dated docket snapshots (a RECAP mirror), not a full live PACER search, and cannot capture filings made after the snapshot; the federal appeal window runs into late October 2026, so the absence of an appeal is a fact about the snapshot, not a closure. The agency’s own designation memorandum was not read as a standalone document (its content is known through the court’s account), and the government’s early-September statement that it still treats Anthropic as a supply-chain risk is a public position, not a court ruling. This is a live, time-sensitive matter, fixed only as of the reference date.
Used forAnthropic sued over the government’s measures; a federal district court ruled them unlawful and struck down the supply-chain-risk designation, while a separate, narrower proceeding remained pending and the government continued publicly to treat the company as a supply-chain risk. The two proceedings have not resolved together.
Best available evidenceTwo orders in Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War, No. 3:26-cv-01996-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Judge Rita F. Lin, both filed 27 August 2026, read directly: the merits opinion (Dkt. 250) — a 59-page order on the cross-motions for summary judgment — for the reasoning and the disposition of the claims; and the separate Order of Final Relief (Dkt. 251) for the concrete legal consequences. The related appellate matters are a Ninth Circuit appeal (No. 26-2011) and a separate D.C. Circuit case (No. 26-1049). The late-August ruling and the government’s continued public position were also widely reported (NPR, Fortune, Reuters and others).
Concrete legal consequences — Order of Final Relief (Dkt. 251, items 9–14)the participating defendants are permanently enjoined from giving effect to the challenged actions; the Supply Chain Designation is vacated, set aside and remanded under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); the directive barring contractors from doing business with Anthropic is vacated and set aside; and the order expressly does not require the Department to use Anthropic’s products and does not prevent it from transitioning to other providers. No stay or bond was imposed, and non-participating defendants are excluded. The designation was thus narrower than a blanket ban (see source 6), and a ruling in one proceeding does not end the others. The caption names the “U.S. Department of War” (the renamed department); the essay’s “Department of Defense” refers to the 2025 agreement under that earlier name.