Anthropic asks the full D.C. Circuit to undo the ruling that upheld its Pentagon blacklisting
Anthropic petitioned the full D.C. Circuit on Oct. 13 to rehear a Sept. 25 panel ruling, decided 2-1, that upheld the Pentagon's supply-chain-risk label on the company. The court has not yet said whether it will hear the case.
The Investor · Invest desk
July 2025: Anthropic signs a $200 million Pentagon contract. September 2025: talks collapse. March 2026: risk label applied. August 27, 2026: Judge Lin finds unlawful retaliation. September 25: D.C. Circuit panel sides with Pentagon. October 13, 2026: Anthropic seeks rehearing.
- 2025Anthropic signs $200 million Pentagon contract, claim 9
- 2025Talks on Claude's GenAI.mil deployment collapse, claim 9
- 2026Defense Department applies supply chain risk label, claim 20
- 2026Judge Rita Lin rules related Pentagon actions unlawful retaliation, claim 10
- 2026D.C. Circuit panel rules for the Pentagon, claim 2
- 2026Anthropic petitions full D.C. Circuit to rehear, claim 1
| Date | Event | Claim |
|---|---|---|
| July 2025 | Anthropic signs $200 million Pentagon contract | 9 |
| September 2025 | Talks on Claude's GenAI.mil deployment collapse | 9 |
| March 2026 | Defense Department applies supply chain risk label | 20 |
| August 27, 2026 | Judge Rita Lin rules related Pentagon actions unlawful retaliation | 10 |
| September 25, 2026 | D.C. Circuit panel rules for the Pentagon | 2 |
| October 13, 2026 | Anthropic petitions full D.C. Circuit to rehear | 1 |
What happened
- CNBC reported that the Defense Department, led by Pete Hegseth, applied the label in March after contract talks broke down, blocking defense contractors from using Anthropic's technology in agency work.
- Cryptobriefing reported that the panel majority found "ample support" for the designation and cited the chance that Anthropic's restrictions could constrain military operations; Judge Henderson dissented.
- On Aug. 27, Judge Rita Lin of a California district court ruled that related Pentagon actions were unlawful retaliation against Anthropic's public AI-safety positions, according to Cryptobriefing.
Why it matters
- contradiction The accounts differ on scope: Cryptobriefing says Pentagon personnel and contractors cannot use Claude at all, while CNBC says contractors are blocked in their work with the agency. The difference matters to a contractor with commercial work that never touches Defense.
- decision Anthropic is using the full-court petition to try to reset the outcome before any Supreme Court filing, according to Cryptobriefing, so a denial leaves the Supreme Court as the step after.
- exposure Contractors' access to Claude hangs on Anthropic's own usage terms: the government's stated concern is its ban on lethal autonomous warfare and domestic surveillance uses, and the petition defends those commitments in court.
The one dollar figure in either account is the $200 million Pentagon contract Anthropic signed in July 2025 [9]. The calendar around it can be worked out. CNBC dates the label to March 2026 [20], which puts it eight months into that contract [18] and six months after the GenAI.mil talks collapsed [19]. Cryptobriefing says "around February or March 2026" [21], and we use March. The petition followed the panel ruling by 18 days [17].
The petition's own words are the cleanest statement of the case. Anthropic's attorneys wrote: "A divided panel upheld that extraordinary designation." [6] They also wrote that the court ignored "straightforward evidence the designation was retaliation for Anthropic's speech about AI safety." [7]
The petition can go two ways. An en banc petition asks every active judge on the court to weigh in [11]. If the court grants it, the panel decision could be reconsidered from scratch [13]. If it declines, the panel ruling stands in that circuit [14]. We think the petition changes the schedule and leaves the exposure where it is, because neither outcome by itself returns a contractor's access to Claude.
The counter-thesis is Judge Lin's California order. According to Cryptobriefing, the petition leans on the gap between Judge Lin's order, which framed the government's actions as punishment for protected speech, and the panel, which treated the matter as national security deference [15]. The petition also argues that the panel moved ahead without properly grappling with the due process and First Amendment questions [8]. If the full court finds that gap persuasive, a grant is a live outcome. We'd expect the California order not to reach the designation itself, since Anthropic would have little need of the D.C. petition otherwise.
We are wrong if the full court grants rehearing and reverses quickly, or if the revenue behind the label is small. CNBC and Cryptobriefing do not cover investors or Anthropic's revenue from Defense and its contractors, so what the label costs in dollars is not in the record.
What to watch
- The D.C. Circuit's order granting or denying the petition; a grant reopens the panel decision from scratch, and a denial leaves it standing in that circuit.
- Whether the government challenges Judge Lin's Aug. 27 California order, whose substantive core Cryptobriefing says has gone unchallenged so far.
- Any disclosure of what Defense and its contractors pay Anthropic, which would size the exposure in dollars.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence68
- Adoption
- Insufficient
- Hype gap+10
- Incentives
- Insufficient
- Confidence66
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
On October 13, 2026, Anthropic filed a petition asking the full US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to rehear, en banc, a case it lost in September.
- [2]
The D.C. Circuit panel ruled on September 25, siding with the Pentagon, which had labeled Anthropic a supply chain risk under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act (FASCSA).
- [3]
The D.C. Circuit's September decision was 2-1 and rejected Anthropic's argument that the Defense Department's ban on its Claude models was arbitrary, unauthorized and unconstitutional.
- [4]
The panel majority found "ample support" for the designation and pointed to the possibility that Anthropic's model restrictions could constrain military operations; Judge Henderson dissented.
- [5]
The government's stated concern centers on Anthropic's own contract terms, under which the company prohibits use of its technology for lethal autonomous warfare and for domestic surveillance.
- [6]
Anthropic's attorneys wrote in the petition filed on Tuesday: "A divided panel upheld that extraordinary designation."
- [7]
Anthropic's attorneys wrote that the court ignored "straightforward evidence the designation was retaliation for Anthropic's speech about AI safety."
- [8]
The petition argues the panel moved ahead without properly grappling with the due process and First Amendment questions raised by the Pentagon's actions.
- [9]
Anthropic signed a $200 million contract with the Pentagon in July 2025, but talks collapsed that September as the company negotiated Claude's deployment on the Defense Department's GenAI.mil platform.
- [10]
On August 27, 2026, Judge Rita Lin of a California district court ruled that related Pentagon actions amounted to unlawful retaliation against Anthropic's public positions on AI safety, a decision whose substantive core has so far gone unchallenged.
- [11]
A petition for rehearing en banc asks every active judge on the court to weigh in, rather than leaving the final word to the panel that heard the case.
- [12]
The en banc petition is an attempt to reset the outcome without going straight to the Supreme Court.
- [13]
If the full D.C. Circuit agrees to rehear the case, the September panel ruling could be reconsidered from scratch.
- [14]
If the full D.C. Circuit declines the petition, the panel ruling stands in that circuit.
- [15]
The California ruling framed the government's actions as punishment for protected speech, while the D.C. Circuit panel treated the matter as a question of national security deference; the petition leans on that gap.
- [16]
The next step is the D.C. Circuit's decision on whether to grant the petition.
- [17]
The October 13 petition came 18 days after the September 25 panel ruling.
- [18]
The March 2026 label arrived eight months after the July 2025 contract was signed.
- [19]
The March 2026 label arrived six months after the September 2025 collapse of the GenAI.mil talks.
- [20]
The Defense Department, led by Pete Hegseth, applied the supply chain risk label in March 2026 after a breakdown in negotiations over military use of Claude, a move that blocked defense contractors from using the company's technology in their work with the agency.
- [21]
Cryptobriefing says the designation landed around February or March 2026 and that Pentagon personnel and contractors are barred from using Claude.
Sources
3 independent publishers whose own reporting we read for this story.
- channelnewsasia.comAnthropic seeks rehearing of case over Pentagon's security risk branding
1 article · October 13, 2026
- cnbc.comAnthropic urges court in Washington, D.C. to rehear appeal of Pentagon blacklisting
1 article · October 13, 2026
- cryptobriefing.comAnthropic asks full appeals court to revisit Pentagon national security ruling
1 article · October 13, 2026
Topics and entities
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Topics
- Defense AI procurementFollow
- AI litigationFollow