This is the operative disposition in Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War, No. 3:26-cv-01996-RFL, entered by United States District Judge Rita F. Lin on August 27, 2026 as docket entry 251. It is four pages and states no reasoning of its own, resting throughout on the accompanying 59-page opinion at docket entry 250 (Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War — Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (N.D. Cal., August 27, 2026)), which defines every capitalized term it uses.
Both parties' motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part.
Judgment by count
| Count | Claim | Disposition |
|---|---|---|
| I | APA challenge to the Hegseth Directive and the Supply Chain Designation | Anthropic's motion granted, the government's denied, as to Secretary Hegseth and the Department of War |
| II | First Amendment | Anthropic's motion granted, the government's denied, as to all defendants except the Non-Participating Defendants |
| III | Ultra vires separation of powers | The government's motion granted, Anthropic's denied, as to all defendants |
| IV | Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment | Anthropic's motion granted, the government's denied, as to all defendants except the Non-Participating Defendants |
| V | APA challenge under 5 U.S.C. § 558 | Anthropic's motion granted as to DoW, Treasury, FHFA, State, GSA, OPM, NRC, DHS and Energy and their agency heads; the government's motion granted as to HHS, Commerce, VA, SEC, NASA and their agency heads, and the Non-Participating Defendants |
As to all claims, judgment was entered for the government against the Non-Participating Defendants, defined in a footnote as the National Endowment for the Arts, the Social Security Administration, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Executive Office of the President, "and their respected heads, and Does 1–10."
The three forms of relief
The order enters three distinct remedies, which are not interchangeable.
Declaratory relief on the constitutional counts (¶¶ 7–8). The Challenged Actions are declared to violate the First Amendment "because they are unlawful retaliation against Anthropic for constitutionally protected expressive activities," and to violate the Due Process Clause "because they deprive Anthropic of constitutionally protected liberty interests without sufficient pre-deprivation notice or opportunity to be heard."
A permanent injunction with an affirmative directive (¶¶ 9–10). All defendants except the Non-Participating Defendants, together with "all of their agents, officers, employees, representatives, successors, assigns" and anyone acting in concert with them, are permanently enjoined from implementing, enforcing or giving effect to the Challenged Actions. Those defendants are further directed to rescind "all guidance, directives, communications, or instructions issued to communicate, effectuate, implement, or enforce, or in furtherance of" the Challenged Actions, and to "[t]ake all necessary actions to prevent" their implementation or enforcement.
Vacatur under the APA (¶¶ 11–13). Three vacaturs are entered under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2):
- The Supply Chain Designation, including the portions of the Hegseth Directive announcing it, is declared "arbitrary, capricious, and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations under 10 U.S.C. § 3252; and without observance of procedure required by law," and is vacated, set aside and remanded.
- The portion of the Hegseth Directive ordering that "[e]ffective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic" is declared arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law, and is vacated and set aside.
- The actions of nine agencies implementing the Presidential Directive — the Department of War, State, OPM, NRC, Treasury, DHS, Energy, FHFA and GSA, each cited to specific bates ranges in the administrative record — are declared to have been "orders and sanctions imposed without jurisdiction delegated to those agencies and without authorization by law, in violation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 558(b) and 706," and are vacated and set aside.
A carve-out follows the third: "The relief described above does not extend to any acts taken by FHFA in a conservator capacity," citing 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).
The order's stated limits
Paragraph 14 restricts the order's reach in terms the accompanying opinion also uses. It "does not bar any Defendant from taking any lawful action that would have been available to it on February 27, 2026, prior to the issuance of the Challenged Actions," and gives an example: it "does not require the Department of War to use Anthropic's products or services and does not prevent the Department of War from transitioning to other artificial intelligence providers, so long as those actions are consistent with applicable regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions." The same sentence appeared in the March 26, 2026 preliminary-injunction order.
Paragraph 15 provides that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order's terms.
Relationships
- supports: Anthropic v. United States (Pentagon ban challenge), Government AI Procurement, AI and the First Amendment.
- depends-on: Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War — Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (N.D. Cal., August 27, 2026), Anthropic, Pete Hegseth, DOD — Department of Defense (AI Deployer).
- related: Anthropic Claude Gov + Pentagon Dispute (2025–2026), Defense / Military — AI Deployment.