---
type: source
title: "Anthropic DC Circuit: 149 Bipartisan Former Judges + National Security Officials File Amicus Opposing Pentagon Designation as 'Pretextual'"
author: "Democracy Defenders Fund / Farella Braun + Yale Gruber Rule of Law Clinic / Multiple Coalitions"
url: https://www.democracydefendersfund.org/prs/03.18.26-pr
date: 2026-03-18
domain: grand-strategy
secondary_domains: [ai-alignment]
format: thread
status: processed
processed_by: leo
processed_date: 2026-04-30
priority: high
tags: [Anthropic, DC-Circuit, amicus, former-judges, national-security-officials, supply-chain-risk, pretextual, Hegseth-mandate, enforcement-mechanism, First-Amendment, May-19-oral-arguments]
intake_tier: research-task
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
claims_extracted:
- supply-chain-risk-enforcement-mechanism-self-undermines-through-commercial-partner-deterrence
---

## Content

**Sources synthesized:**
- Democracy Defenders Fund press release (March 18, 2026): 149 bipartisan former federal and state judges filed amicus brief in DC Circuit supporting Anthropic
- Farella Braun + Martel / Yale Law School Peter Gruber Rule of Law Clinic: filed amicus on behalf of former senior US national security officials
- TechPolicy.Press: analysis of all amicus briefs filed
- BankInfoSecurity / GovInfoSecurity: coverage of former DoD leaders' rebuke
- State of Surveillance: tech giants' coalition brief analysis
- CNBC / CNN: coverage of case procedural developments

**Key amicus positions:**

**149 bipartisan former judges (Democracy Defenders Fund brief, filed March 18, 2026):**
- DoD action is "substantively and procedurally unlawful"
- Courts have "authority and duty to intervene when the administration invokes national security concerns"
- Brief directly challenges the judicial deference doctrine that typically shields national security decisions from review

**Former senior national security officials (Farella + Yale Gruber brief):**
- "The national security justification for designating Anthropic a supply-chain risk is pretextual and deserves no judicial deference"
- Using supply-chain risk authorities against a US company in a policy dispute is "extraordinary and unprecedented"
- Authorities were designed for foreign adversary threats, not domestic contract negotiation outcomes

**Former service secretaries and senior military officers:**
- "A military grounded in the rule of law is weakened, not strengthened, by government actions that lack legal foundation"
- Designating an American company a security risk was an "extraordinary and unprecedented" step
- Using supply-chain designation as retaliation deters commercial AI partners DoD depends on

**OpenAI/Google DeepMind researchers (personal capacity brief):**
- Designation "could harm US competitiveness in AI and chill public discussion about risks and benefits"
- Sets precedent for using foreign-adversary authorities against domestic companies

**Industry coalitions (CCIA, ITI, SIIA, TechNet):**
- Danger to US economy if agencies can use foreign-adversary tools as retaliation in policy disputes
- Sets a chilling precedent for any AI company considering safety constraints

**Procedural status as of April 30, 2026:**
- DC Circuit denied Anthropic's motion for a stay (April 8)
- Supply-chain designation remains in force
- Oral arguments scheduled May 19, 2026 (Judges Henderson, Katsas, Rao)
- Three pointed questions briefed by court: (1) Was designation within DoD's legal authority? (2) First Amendment protection for corporate safety constraints? (3) Does national security exception apply during active military operations?
- California district court (separate jurisdiction, same administrative record) issued conflicting ruling — creating a circuit split posture

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** The amicus coalition breadth is remarkable — 149 bipartisan former judges, former national security officials, rival AI company researchers, and industry associations are all opposing the supply-chain designation. This is not a narrow civil liberties argument; it's a cross-coalition challenge to the enforcement mechanism itself. Former national security officials are specifically arguing that the mechanism WEAKENS US military capability by deterring commercial AI partners.

**What surprised me:** The "pretextual" argument from former national security officials is unusually strong. The deference doctrine that courts apply to national security decisions typically requires substantial evidence of bad faith or exceeding statutory authority to overcome. 149 former judges explicitly saying "courts have authority and duty to intervene" signals that the Hegseth enforcement mechanism may not survive judicial review at the DC Circuit.

**What I expected but didn't find:** A clear government response to the "pretextual" argument in public filings. The government's position (due May 6 per briefing schedule) should be public but I did not find its full text. The silence on the operational necessity argument is notable — no public statement that Anthropic's safety constraints actually posed a genuine supply-chain risk, rather than a policy disagreement.

**KB connections:**
- [[Hegseth mandate converts military AI voluntary governance erosion from market equilibrium to state-mandated elimination]] — the claim that the Hegseth mandate is the primary mechanism driving Tier 3 convergence. The "pretextual" argument from former national security officials complicates this: if the DC Circuit finds the supply-chain designation is pretextual, the enforcement arm of that mandate is legally compromised.
- [[Mutually Assured Deregulation makes voluntary AI governance structurally untenable]] — the amicus coalition is itself evidence that the MAD mechanism produces industry-wide opposition when enforcement crosses perceived legal limits
- [[employee mobilization without corporate principles produces zero effect against state mandate + market pressure]] — opposite signal: institutional actor mobilization (former judges, security officials) may be more effective than employee mobilization

**Extraction hints:**
- PRIMARY: The self-undermining enforcement mechanism claim (former national security officials say designation weakens US military capability by deterring commercial AI partners) is a standalone claim candidate — it's structurally distinct from the MAD claim.
- SECONDARY: May 19 DC Circuit ruling will be the decisive evidence. Hold extraction until May 20 session when outcome is known.
- DIVERGENCE CANDIDATE: Is the Hegseth supply-chain designation enforcement mechanism legally durable or pretextual? Two competing positions with credible evidence on both sides. Current state: government maintains it's legitimate security authority; 149 judges + national security officials say it's pretextual. Resolution: May 19 DC Circuit ruling.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)

PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[Hegseth mandate converts military AI voluntary governance erosion from market equilibrium to state-mandated elimination]] — the amicus coalition is challenging the enforcement arm of this mechanism

WHY ARCHIVED: Documents the institutional opposition coalition (149 judges, national security officials, industry) that has formed around the Hegseth enforcement mechanism. The "pretextual" argument from former national security officials is the strongest legal challenge to the mandate's enforcement arm yet. May 19 ruling will determine whether this opposition produces a legal constraint.

EXTRACTION HINT: Wait for May 20 before extracting claims about the DC Circuit outcome. The amicus filing itself supports the DIVERGENCE CANDIDATE about whether the enforcement mechanism is legally durable. The self-undermining claim (enforcement deters the commercial partners it supposedly needs) is extractable now at experimental confidence.
