It says that reading conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in Fischer v. United States, and that Judge Henderson's dissent read the clause as reaching intentionally subversive and deceptive acts.

The exact words it rests on

That expansive interpretation conflicts with Fischer v. United States, 603 U.S. 480 (2024). As Judge Henderson explained in dissent, an "otherwise" clause takes meaning from the terms it follows, which here "connote intentionally subversive and deceptive acts."

What the source said when we opened it, on 14 Oct 2026.

The source

Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc, Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War, Nos. 26-1049 and 26-1162 (D.C. Cir., filed 13 October 2026), with the 25 September 2026 panel opinion in its addendum
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (filing by Anthropic's counsel) · 2026-10-13

Open the sourcearchived copy

Checked

Checked by the notis newsroom on 14 Oct 2026, against the source above.

In the story

Anthropic asks full D.C. Circuit to rehear Pentagon supply-chain ruling 14 Oct 2026