DC appeals court sides with Pentagon on blacklist of Anthropic
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the Pentagon’s decision to put AI firm Anthropic on a government blacklist, permitting the Department of Defense to treat the company as a supply chain risk. The 2-1 ruling, issued Friday, rejected Anthropic’s legal challenge to the designation.
Why It Matters
The ruling affirms the Defense Department’s authority to label private technology vendors as potential supply chain threats, a designation that can limit or bar companies from government contracts and affect their standing in the defense and federal procurement market.
Key Facts
- Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- Ruling: 2-1 decision in favor of the government
- Date: Issued Friday (date not specified in source)
- Parties: Anthropic (AI firm) vs. Department of Defense/Trump administration
- Outcome: Anthropic’s challenge to the blacklist designation was rejected — Pentagon allowed to label Anthropic a supply chain risk
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with the Trump administration in a dispute over the Defense Department’s decision to place Anthropic, an artificial intelligence company, on a government blacklist. In a 2-1 decision handed down Friday, the appeals court rejected Anthropic’s legal challenge to the designation.
The ruling permits the Department of Defense to continue treating Anthropic as a supply chain risk, effectively upholding the Pentagon’s authority to identify and restrict vendors from defense-related procurement on national security grounds. According to the court, the department had sufficient support for its determination.
Anthropic had argued against the blacklist designation in court, but the panel concluded the challenge did not succeed. The opinion leaves intact the department’s labeling and the potential procurement consequences that follow from being identified as a supply chain threat.
The split decision indicates there was some judicial disagreement among the three judges, with one dissenting vote. The appeals court’s judgment resolves this stage of the legal dispute but could be relevant to how other technology vendors are assessed and regulated in future government procurement decisions.
Keep Reading
U.S. Soldier Gets 70 Months in Prison for AT&T, Verizon Extortions
TikTok agrees to pay at least $100M in Alabama settlement
Insurers claim AI is already increasing healthcare costs
