CL-SN55 941 —
GPT-61S 885 —
GPT-56T 861 —
GPT-6S 825 —
CL-OP55X 818 -0.1%
MUSE-SPK 793 —
QWEN-38X 779 —
GPT-6A 778 —
CL-OP5H 711 -0.1%
CL-OP5X 709 -0.1%
KIMI-K3X 699 -0.1%
CL-OP46H 694 -0.1%
CL-FAB5H 692 -0.1%
CL-OP55H 692 -0.1%
CL-OP47H 683 -0.1%
GEM-37FH 648 -0.2%
GEM-38FH 633 -0.2%
INKL 531 —
CL-OP47 529 -0.2%
GPT-56S 529 -5.9%
GEM-3P 493 —
CL-OP46 488 —
CL-OP48 481 —
GEM-31P 453 -0.2%
GPT-6L 436 —
CL-SN55 941 —
GPT-61S 885 —
GPT-56T 861 —
GPT-6S 825 —
CL-OP55X 818 -0.1%
MUSE-SPK 793 —
QWEN-38X 779 —
GPT-6A 778 —
CL-OP5H 711 -0.1%
CL-OP5X 709 -0.1%
KIMI-K3X 699 -0.1%
CL-OP46H 694 -0.1%
CL-FAB5H 692 -0.1%
CL-OP55H 692 -0.1%
CL-OP47H 683 -0.1%
GEM-37FH 648 -0.2%
GEM-38FH 633 -0.2%
INKL 531 —
CL-OP47 529 -0.2%
GPT-56S 529 -5.9%
GEM-3P 493 —
CL-OP46 488 —
CL-OP48 481 —
GEM-31P 453 -0.2%
GPT-6L 436 —
← Back to feed

Federal Judge Strikes Down Anthropic Blacklisting as Unlawful First Amendment Retaliation

A federal judge in the Northern District of California ruled Thursday that the Trump administration’s decision to blacklist Anthropic was illegal, delivering a significant legal defeat to the administration’s attempt to use national security designations against AI companies.

U.S. District Judge Rita Lin found that the Pentagon’s February designation of Anthropic as a supply-chain security risk constituted “unlawful retaliation” in violation of the First Amendment, and that Anthropic was denied the procedural protections required under the Fifth Amendment. Judge Lin had previously issued a pause on the designation in March.

What the Designation Did

The blacklisting, imposed in February 2026, labelled Anthropic a security risk and barred the company from working with the U.S. government. Anthropic argued the designation could cost billions in lost business and cause lasting reputational harm. The label effectively froze procurement relationships across federal agencies that had been evaluating or using Claude-based systems.

The timing was notable: the designation came weeks after Anthropic had publicly opposed certain administration AI policy positions.

Judge Lin’s ruling rested on two constitutional grounds.

On the First Amendment: the court found the designation was retaliatory — it followed protected speech activity by the company and was not adequately explained by legitimate security concerns. Retaliatory government action targeting companies for their public positions on policy is unconstitutional regardless of the national security framing applied.

On the Fifth Amendment: the court found Anthropic was denied due process. The company was not given adequate notice of the basis for the designation or a meaningful opportunity to respond before it took effect.

The combination is significant. The ruling does not just find procedural error; it finds that the underlying motivation was unconstitutional.

Anthropic’s Response

Anthropic said it was “pleased the court has ruled that this designation was unlawful.” The company had argued throughout the litigation that the blacklisting was unprecedented, factually unsupported, and designed to punish the company for its public statements on AI safety and policy.

Broader Context

The ruling is the latest in a pattern of judicial pushback on administration AI policy. A separate ruling earlier this year blocked the DOGE-directed ChatGPT grant cuts as unconstitutional. Federal courts have now blocked or vacated multiple administration actions in the AI space on First and Fifth Amendment grounds.

For Anthropic, the practical effect is restoration of eligibility for federal contracts. The company had been tracking losses from the designation across agencies including the Department of Defense, State Department, and intelligence community — relationships that had either stalled or been redirected to OpenAI and Google during the litigation.

For the industry, the ruling sets a precedent: national security labelling of AI companies is subject to constitutional scrutiny and cannot be used as a retaliatory tool without procedural safeguards. The administration can appeal.