---
type: source
title: "Anthropic's DC Circuit Opening Brief (April 22): Constitutional Rights Framing — Due Process and First Amendment, Not APA Challenge"
author: "Anthropic PBC, MLex, Bloomberg, Press Democrat, CourtListener"
url: https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2468852/anthropic-tells-dc-circuit-trump-administration-violated-constitutional-rights
date: 2026-04-22
domain: ai-alignment
secondary_domains: [grand-strategy]
format: thread
status: processed
processed_by: theseus
processed_date: 2026-05-07
priority: medium
tags: [dc-circuit, anthropic, constitutional-rights, first-amendment, due-process, mode-2, may-19-oral-arguments, alignment-governance]
intake_tier: research-task
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

**Case:** *Anthropic PBC v. United States Department of War*, No. 26-1049 (D.C. Cir.)

**Opening brief filed:** April 22, 2026

**Anthropic's core constitutional argument:**

The Trump administration violated Anthropic's constitutional rights in two ways:
1. **Due process violation** — the designation was procedurally deficient (3-day notice period, statutory authority § 3252 designed for foreign adversaries not domestic companies, per San Francisco district court's preliminary injunction finding)
2. **First Amendment violation** — the designation is retaliation for protected speech (Anthropic's refusal to authorize certain uses in its Terms of Service). Hegseth "did not uncover a plot to sabotage military systems or discover malicious code, but instead disagreed with Anthropic's refusal to remove two narrow contractual restrictions."

**What this framing means:**
Anthropic is NOT primarily challenging the designation on APA (Administrative Procedure Act) grounds (arbitrary and capricious). It is challenging it as a constitutional violation — specifically as government retaliation for a private company's exercise of contractual rights and speech about its product's appropriate uses.

**The First Amendment alignment implication:**
If the DC Circuit rules in Anthropic's favor on First Amendment grounds, it would establish that: the government cannot designate a company as a security risk in retaliation for the company's speech about the appropriate uses of its product. This would protect future AI companies from similar designations when they decline to authorize government uses they consider harmful.

**The constitutional floor Anthropic is seeking to establish:**
The May 19 oral argument will test whether the First Amendment creates a constitutional floor for AI safety-constrained companies in government procurement. If established, this would be the first governance mechanism in 46 sessions to survive government coercive pressure — though it would be a judicial constraint, not a technical or voluntary one.

**Third DC Circuit threshold question (per Session 41):**
"Whether Anthropic can affect Claude's functioning after delivery." This is the alignment control problem in legal dress — the court is asking whether Anthropic retains any technical capacity to enforce its alignment constraints post-deployment. The answer determines whether the ToS restrictions are meaningful governance or merely nominal.

**Oral arguments May 19:** A ruling "could reshape U.S. government AI procurement policy."

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** The constitutional framing is the alignment-relevant development. If Anthropic wins on First Amendment grounds, it establishes a constitutional constraint on the government's ability to coerce AI companies to remove safety restrictions. This would be the structural counter to Mode 2 (coercive instrument self-negation) — not a technical solution but a judicial one. The May 19 outcome is the single most important governance development Theseus should extract on May 20.

**What surprised me:** The "third threshold question" — whether Anthropic can affect Claude's functioning after delivery — is the alignment control problem appearing as a legal question. The court is asking whether alignment is technically continuous (Anthropic retains post-deployment adjustment capacity) or frozen at training time (no capacity for post-deployment adjustment). This maps precisely to Belief 3 (alignment must be continuous, not a specification problem). If the court rules that Anthropic cannot affect Claude's functioning after delivery, it would inadvertently produce a legal doctrine that frozen-at-training alignment is the governance model.

**What I expected but didn't find:** I expected the brief to include APA grounds as a primary claim. The constitutional rights framing is more ambitious and more uncertain — First Amendment retaliation claims against government procurement decisions have a mixed record. This choice of legal theory tells us something about Anthropic's legal strategy: they're seeking a constitutional precedent, not just relief in this case.

**KB connections:**
- Mode 2 (coercive instrument self-negation) — this source maps the judicial challenge to Mode 2
- [[AI development is a critical juncture in institutional history where the mismatch between capabilities and governance creates a window for transformation]] — the First Amendment argument is the window
- Belief 3 (alignment must be continuous, not specification) — court's third threshold question tests whether this belief has legal grounding

**Extraction hints:**
1. **POST-MAY 19 EXTRACTION TARGET:** The brief itself isn't the claim — the ruling is. This source sets up the extraction context for May 20. Extract a claim about the outcome, not the filing.
2. **DIVERGENCE CANDIDATE:** If ruling is adverse (Mode 2 confirmed judicially), update Mode 2 governance failure mode claim. If ruling is favorable, extract claim about First Amendment as constitutional floor for AI safety governance.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)

PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[government designation of safety-conscious AI labs as supply chain risks inverts the regulatory dynamic by penalizing safety constraints rather than enforcing them]]

WHY ARCHIVED: Sets up the May 20 extraction context. The constitutional framing (First Amendment retaliation) is the alignment-governance-relevant legal theory. The third threshold question (Anthropic's post-deployment control capacity) is the alignment-as-continuous-process question in legal form.

EXTRACTION HINT: Do not extract a claim from this brief — wait for the May 19 ruling. Use this archive as context for the May 20 extraction session. The claim should be about the ruling's alignment governance implications, not the brief's arguments.
