美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院支持特朗普政府将人工智能公司Anthropic列入黑名单，认定五角大楼有充分依据证明，将该公司列为国家安全风险的决定合理。周五公布的这项2比1裁决驳回了Anthropic的挑战，认为美国国防部有“充分依据”相信，该机构或其承包商继续使用Anthropic的Claude模型会带来国家安全风险。巡回法院法官格雷戈里·卡斯塔斯代表多数意见写道：“正如Anthropic自己承认的那样，该公司在Claude中设置了限制，以防模型执行Anthropic希望禁止的任务。”卡斯塔斯继续说：“这些限制已不止一次阻止Claude执行政府用户提出的任务。”Anthropic上月起诉特朗普政府，对五角大楼作出的指定提出异议。这种指定通常只针对外国敌对势力。公司同时质疑特朗普总统今年早些时候因安全限制措施谈判破裂而发布的命令，该命令要求政府文职机构停止使用Anthropic的产品。Anthropic要求不得将其技术用于完全自主的致命性武器，也不得用于对美国民众实施大规模监控；五角大楼则坚持，其使用Anthropic的Claude模型应获准用于“所有合法用途”。法院进一步认定，Anthropic依据美国宪法第一修正案和第五修正案提出的主张均无依据。卡斯塔斯写道：“其正当程序主张不能成立，因为国防部及时通知了该公司有关将其排除在外及其理由依据，并给予该公司公平机会对该决定提出异议。”他继续说：“Anthropic依据第一修正案提出的主张同样不能成立，因为国防部是基于该公司拒绝同意其认为 essential 的一项合同条款，才将其排除在供应链之外，而不是因为该公司支持加强对人工智能技术的政府监管。”
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Trump administration in its blacklisting of the artificial intelligence firm Anthropic, finding the Pentagon adequately backed up its decision to label the firm a national security risk. The 2-1 ruling, issued Friday, rejected Anthropic's challenge, finding the Department of Defense had "ample support" for its belief that the continued use of Anthropic's Claude models by the agency or its contractors presented a national security risk. "As Anthropic admits, the company encodes restrictions into Claude that prevent the model from performing tasks that Anthropic wishes to prevent," Circuit Judge Gregory Kastas wrote for the majority. "On more than one occasion, these restrictions have stopped Claude from performing tasks requested by government users," Kastas continued. Anthropic sued the Trump administration last month, challenging both the Pentagon’s designation — typically reserved for foreign adversaries — and President Trump’s directive for civilian agencies to stop using Anthropic’s products after negotiations fell apart over safety guardrails earlier this year. Anthropic requested its technology not be used in fully autonomous lethal weapons or for the mass surveillance of Americans, while the Pentagon insisted it be allowed to use Anthropic's Claude for "all lawful uses." The court further determined Anthropic's constitutional claims related to the First and Fifth Amendments were unfounded. "Its due-process claim fails because the Department promptly notified the company of the exclusion and its supporting rationale, and then gave the company a fair opportunity to contest the exclusion," Kastas wrote. "And Anthropic’s First Amendment, claim fails because the Department excluded Anthropic from its supply chain based on the company’s refusal to assent to a contract term that the Department deemed essential, not based on the company’s support for greater governmental regulation of AI technology," he continued. Judge Neomi Rao joined Kastas in the majority, while Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented, arguing the government interpreted the supply chain risk statute under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act, too broadly Friday's ruling breaks with a California federal judge's decision last month finding the government violated the First Amendment when it issued the supply chain risk. Rao agreed with Anthropic's argument that the Trump administration retaliated against the Claude maker for its “constitutionally protected activity” and violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The contradicting rulings could tee up a Supreme Court fight in the future. A spokesperson for Anthropic said the firm "respectfully disagrees" with the appeals court ruling. "Another federal court has already held the government's parallel designation unlawful," they added. "We remain confident in our position and are considering all options, including further review."
内奥米·拉奥法官加入了卡斯塔斯法官所领导的多数意见，卡伦·勒克拉夫特·亨德森法官则持异议，认为政府依据《联邦采购供应链安全法》对供应链风险法规的解释过于宽泛。周五的裁决与加州一名联邦法官上个月的判决相左；该判决认定，政府在作出供应链风险认定时侵犯了《第一修正案》。拉奥同意Anthropic的说法，认为特朗普政府因这家Claude开发商开展“受宪法保护的活动”而对其进行报复，违反了《第五修正案》的正当程序条款。这些相互矛盾的裁决未来可能为最高法院的交锋铺路。Anthropic的一名发言人表示，公司“谨对上诉法院的裁决表示异议”。他们补充道：“另一家联邦法院已经认定政府的同类认定违法。我们仍对自己的立场充满信心，正在考虑所有选项，包括申请进一步审查。”
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Trump administration in its blacklisting of the artificial intelligence firm Anthropic, finding the Pentagon adequately backed up its decision to label the firm a national security risk. The 2-1 ruling, issued Friday, rejected Anthropic's challenge, finding the Department of Defense had "ample support" for its belief that the continued use of Anthropic's Claude models by the agency or its contractors presented a national security risk. "As Anthropic admits, the company encodes restrictions into Claude that prevent the model from performing tasks that Anthropic wishes to prevent," Circuit Judge Gregory Kastas wrote for the majority. "On more than one occasion, these restrictions have stopped Claude from performing tasks requested by government users," Kastas continued. Anthropic sued the Trump administration last month, challenging both the Pentagon’s designation — typically reserved for foreign adversaries — and President Trump’s directive for civilian agencies to stop using Anthropic’s products after negotiations fell apart over safety guardrails earlier this year. Anthropic requested its technology not be used in fully autonomous lethal weapons or for the mass surveillance of Americans, while the Pentagon insisted it be allowed to use Anthropic's Claude for "all lawful uses." The court further determined Anthropic's constitutional claims related to the First and Fifth Amendments were unfounded. "Its due-process claim fails because the Department promptly notified the company of the exclusion and its supporting rationale, and then gave the company a fair opportunity to contest the exclusion," Kastas wrote. "And Anthropic’s First Amendment, claim fails because the Department excluded Anthropic from its supply chain based on the company’s refusal to assent to a contract term that the Department deemed essential, not based on the company’s support for greater governmental regulation of AI technology," he continued. Judge Neomi Rao joined Kastas in the majority, while Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented, arguing the government interpreted the supply chain risk statute under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act, too broadly Friday's ruling breaks with a California federal judge's decision last month finding the government violated the First Amendment when it issued the supply chain risk. Rao agreed with Anthropic's argument that the Trump administration retaliated against the Claude maker for its “constitutionally protected activity” and violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The contradicting rulings could tee up a Supreme Court fight in the future. A spokesperson for Anthropic said the firm "respectfully disagrees" with the appeals court ruling. "Another federal court has already held the government's parallel designation unlawful," they added. "We remain confident in our position and are considering all options, including further review."