From the daily edition · 14 Oct 2026Laws and rulings
Anthropic asks full D.C. Circuit to rehear Pentagon supply-chain ruling
On 13 October Anthropic petitioned the D.C. Circuit for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc of its divided ruling of 25 September, which sided with the Department of War over its exclusion of Claude.
In short
- Anthropic filed the petition on 13 October 2026 in Nos. 26-1049 and 26-1162; its conclusion says only that the court should grant it.
- The petition argues the majority read "otherwise manipulate" to mean "arrange, operate, or control" regardless of intent, and that the Secretary bypassed the statute's pre-designation notice and opportunity to respond.
- The petition says the Secretary's notice of 4 March 2026 designated Anthropic under 41 U.S.C. section 4713, and a separate notice designated it under 10 U.S.C. section 3252.
Anthropic filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on 13 October 2026, in Nos. 26-1049 (lead) and 26-1162 (consolidated), Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War.
The petition asks the court to rehear the case after a divided panel decided it on 25 September 2026; its conclusion says only that the court should grant the petition. In the 25 September opinion, Judge Katsas wrote for the court and Judge Henderson dissented.
The opinion says the Department of War excluded Claude from its supply chain under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018 after Anthropic refused to relax contractual prohibitions on the use of Claude for lethal autonomous warfare or domestic surveillance.
The panel held that the Department had ample support for concluding that continued integration of Claude into its information systems, by the Department or its contractors, presented a statutorily covered national-security risk.
The petition argues that the majority read the statute's words "otherwise manipulate" to mean "arrange, operate, or control" regardless of subversive intent, so that the statute "turns on what Anthropic does, not why Anthropic does it." 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.
On process, the petition says the Secretary bypassed the statute's pre-designation notice and opportunity to respond, that the majority held the violations harmless, and that this conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Cook.
On due process, the petition says the D.C. Circuit's precedents require notice and an opportunity to respond before a national-security designation absent a showing of particularized need, and that the majority deferred to the Secretary's assertions of urgency.
On the First Amendment, the petition says the Northern District of California found direct evidence that Anthropic's speech motivated a parallel designation, in a ruling of 27 August 2026, while the majority here discerned no evidence of retaliatory intent.
The petition says fifteen amicus briefs were filed, including from trade associations, former national-security officials, 149 former judges, civil-liberties organizations and AI professionals.
According to the petition, the Secretary sent Anthropic a notice on 4 March 2026 designating it a supply-chain risk under 41 U.S.C. section 4713, and a separate notice designated it under 10 U.S.C. section 3252.
It says Anthropic petitioned this court for review of the section 4713 designation on 9 March and challenged the section 3252 designation in the Northern District of California.
The petition says that because this court's jurisdiction over section 4713 challenges is exclusive, the panel decision will be the last word short of Supreme Court review.
What it means for you · our view
The petition is Anthropic's account of the 25 September ruling, not the court's. The petition says the court's jurisdiction over section 4713 challenges is exclusive, so the panel decision would be the last word short of Supreme Court review.
It also says the section 3252 designation is challenged separately, in the Northern District of California, so this filing does not settle both.
If you supply Anthropic's models to a federal agency or a federal contractor, ask your contracts team which designation your work touches, and watch for the court's order on the petition.
How we checked this · the sources14 checked facts from 1 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) · archived copy
- Anthropic filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on 13 October 2026, in Nos. 26-1049 (lead) and 26-1162 (consolidated), Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War.
checked 14 Oct 2026No. 26-1049 (lead); No. 26-1162 (consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ANTHROPIC PBC, Petitioner, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF WAR ... PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC ... October 13, 2026
- The petition asks the court to rehear the case after a divided panel decided it on 25 September 2026; its conclusion says only that the court should grant the petition.
checked 14 Oct 2026A divided panel upheld that extraordinary designation. ... CONCLUSION The Court should grant the petition.
- In the 25 September opinion, Judge Katsas wrote for the court and Judge Henderson dissented.
checked 14 Oct 2026Before: HENDERSON, KATSAS, and RAO, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge KATSAS. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.
- The opinion says the Department of War excluded Claude from its supply chain under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018 after Anthropic refused to relax contractual prohibitions on the use of Claude for lethal autonomous warfare or domestic surveillance.
checked 14 Oct 2026This case arises from a decision by the Department of War to exclude Claude, an artificialintelligence product developed by petitioner Anthropic PBC, from its supply chain under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018. The Department made this decision after Anthropic refused to relax contractual prohibitions on the use of Claude for lethal autonomous warfare or domestic surveillance.
- The panel held that the Department had ample support for concluding that continued integration of Claude into its information systems, by the Department or its contractors, presented a statutorily covered national-security risk.
checked 14 Oct 2026The Department had ample support for its conclusion that the continued integration of Claude into the Department's information systems, by the Department or its contractors, presented a statutorily covered national-security risk.
- The petition argues that the majority read the statute's words "otherwise manipulate" to mean "arrange, operate, or control" regardless of subversive intent, so that the statute "turns on what Anthropic does, not why Anthropic does it."
checked 14 Oct 2026Instead, it interpreted "otherwise manipulate" to mean "arrange, operate, or control"-- regardless of any subversive intent--so that the statute "turns on what Anthropic does, not why Anthropic does it."
- 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.
checked 14 Oct 2026That 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."
- On process, the petition says the Secretary bypassed the statute's pre-designation notice and opportunity to respond, that the majority held the violations harmless, and that this conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Cook.
checked 14 Oct 2026The Secretary bypassed those protections, invoking "an urgent national security interest" in a single conclusory sentence. App.225. The majority deemed the procedural violations harmless ... That defies precedent, including Trump v. Cook, 146 S.Ct. 2234, 2255 (2026)
- On due process, the petition says the D.C. Circuit's precedents require notice and an opportunity to respond before a national-security designation absent a showing of particularized need, and that the majority deferred to the Secretary's assertions of urgency.
checked 14 Oct 2026This Court's due process precedents require notice and an opportunity to respond before a national-security designation is imposed--even for putative foreign terrorist organizations--absent a "showing of particularized need." ... The majority eviscerated that particularized-need standard by deferring to the Secretary's bare assertions of urgency despite obvious inconsistencies.
- On the First Amendment, the petition says the Northern District of California found direct evidence that Anthropic's speech motivated a parallel designation, in a ruling of 27 August 2026, while the majority here discerned no evidence of retaliatory intent.
checked 14 Oct 2026Despite the Department's own words, the majority "discern[ed]" no evidence of retaliatory intent. Add.41. On a materially similar record, the Northern District of California found "direct evidence that Anthropic's speech" motivated a parallel designation. Anthropic PBC v. Department of War, 2026 WL 2534714, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2026).
- The petition says fifteen amicus briefs were filed, including from trade associations, former national-security officials, 149 former judges, civil-liberties organizations and AI professionals.
checked 14 Oct 2026Fifteen amicus briefs--from trade associations, former national-security officials, 149 former judges, civil-liberties organizations, and AI professionals--confirm the decision's far-reaching consequences.
- According to the petition, the Secretary sent Anthropic a notice on 4 March 2026 designating it a supply-chain risk under 41 U.S.C. section 4713, and a separate notice designated it under 10 U.S.C. section 3252.
Toned downchecked 14 Oct 2026After further negotiations, the Secretary sent Anthropic a notice on March 4 designating the company a supply-chain risk under 4713. App.72-73. A separate notice designated Anthropic a supply-chain risk under 10 U.S.C. 3252.
- It says Anthropic petitioned this court for review of the section 4713 designation on 9 March and challenged the section 3252 designation in the Northern District of California.
checked 14 Oct 2026On March 9, Anthropic petitioned for review of the 4713 designation in this Court under 41 U.S.C. 1327. It simultaneously challenged the 3252 designation in its home venue, the Northern District of California.
- The petition says that because this court's jurisdiction over section 4713 challenges is exclusive, the panel decision will be the last word short of Supreme Court review.
checked 14 Oct 2026And because this Court's jurisdiction over 4713 challenges is "exclusive," 41 U.S.C. 1327(b)(3), the decision will be the last word short of Supreme Court review.
- Anthropic filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on 13 October 2026, in Nos. 26-1049 (lead) and 26-1162 (consolidated), Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War.