Federal judge rules Trump administration violated Anthropic's First Amendment rights in AI dispute

Court Rules First and Fifth Amendment Violations in National Security Dispute

A federal judge has struck down the Trump administration's designation of AI company Anthropic as a "supply chain risk to national security," citing First Amendment concerns in a significant court victory for the plaintiff. The company also prevailed on a due process claim.

President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had made clear their intent to punish Anthropic for its ethical limitations on how its technology can be used, banning federal agencies and contractors from doing business with the company. The ruling serves as a reminder that government officials cannot take such actions in the United States.

When Private Ethics Meet Government Arrogance

Anthropic has a longstanding commitment to keeping the use of what the firm's founders regard as potentially dangerous AI technology subject to ethical safeguards. The company restricts how its AI is used by all customers, including the U.S. military.

In a February press release, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei detailed the points of disagreement between the company and the Trump administration. He emphasized his company's position that:

• "Using these systems for mass domestic surveillance is incompatible with democratic values"
• "Frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. We will not knowingly provide a product that puts America's warfighters and civilians at risk"

Amodei added that Anthropic has turned away large contracts with companies linked to the Chinese Communist Party because of ethical concerns, and that similar considerations apply to all potential partners, including the U.S. government.

Administration Response

In response, President Trump raged on Truth Social:

"THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL NEVER ALLOW A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY TO DICTATE HOW OUR GREAT MILITARY FIGHTS AND WINS WARS!"

He added: "I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic's technology."

Likewise, Hegseth objected on X that Anthropic and Amodei "have chosen duplicity. Cloaked in the sanctimonious rhetoric of 'effective altruism,' they have attempted to strong-arm the United States military into submission."

He added that "the Department of War must have full, unrestricted access to Anthropic's models for every LAWFUL purpose in defense of the Republic" and until that time "no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic."

Agree or disagree with Anthropic's positions, it is clear the company has a corporate philosophy guiding how it allows its technology to be used. The administration did not like those constraints, and rather than work within them or find another vendor that places fewer restrictions on its products, the government sought to bludgeon the company into changing its policies.

Government officials in the U.S. are not allowed to do that.

'Undisputed Facts' Establish First and Fifth Amendment Violations

Judge Rita F. Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California wrote in her decision:

"The undisputed facts establish that Anthropic's protected speech, on a matter of great public importance, was a substantial motivating factor for Defendants' speech-chilling conduct, and that Defendants would not have taken the retaliatory action absent their desire to make an example of Anthropic for its public stance on the weighty issues at stake in the contracting dispute."

She further noted: "Agency Defendants began complying with the Presidential Directive—or in the case of [the Department of Defense], began complying with the Supply Chain Designation—before Anthropic had been provided with any notice or opportunity to challenge the decisions" and therefore "Anthropic has shown that the Agency Defendants' actions violate due process."

Lin emphasized that the government is free to choose any AI vendor it wishes. What it cannot do is punish companies that place limitations on the use of their products and embrace philosophies at odds with those of officials:

"The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics."

Lin entered summary judgments for Anthropic's First Amendment and Fifth Amendment claims. In the order of final relief, the government is "enjoined from implementing, enforcing, or giving effect to the Challenged Actions."

Lin also caught the administration abusing government processes by designating Anthropic as a "supply chain risk to national security" even as it continued to negotiate with the company. "Defendants do not submit any evidence explaining..." the judge noted, with the remainder of that observation underscoring the lack of justification for the administration's actions.

You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.