The Lawfare Podcast · The Lawfare Institute

Lawfare Live: A Hearing on Anthropic's Preliminary Injunction Motion

March 24, 2026·33 min·3 clips

Kate Klonick dismantles the government's sabotage claim: 'If you were going to sabotage, you'd hang on to the contract for dear life.'

This live episode of the Lawfare Podcast was recorded on the evening of March 24, 2026, immediately after a federal court hearing in the Northern District of California. Judge Lynn heard arguments on Anthropic's motion for a preliminary injunction against the Department of Defense, which had designated the AI company a supply chain risk after Anthropic refused to remove use restrictions from its government contracts. The panel identifies three legal baskets at issue. First, the secondary boycott: Pete Hegseth tweeted that not only would the government cut ties with Anthropic, but that companies doing business with Anthropic could also lose government contracts. The DOJ conceded in court that Hegseth's tweet carries no legal effect, and the panelists expect the judge will formalize that concession into an order. Second, the supply chain risk designation under 32 USC 3252. The statute was designed to address foreign adversaries engaging in sabotage or subversion of defense systems. The government applied it to Anthropic, a domestic company, after Anthropic refused to remove contractual restrictions on autonomous lethal weapons and mass surveillance of Americans. The panelists note that Judge Lynn questioned whether a company's open refusal to change contract terms could constitute the kind of covert threat the statute contemplates. Kate Klonick pointed out the logical problem: a company planning sabotage would not openly refuse a contract modification. The government conceded it had not followed the statutory requirement to consult congressional committees about less intrusive measures before making the designation. It argued this procedural failure did not matter for preliminary injunction purposes. Third, First Amendment retaliation and due process claims. In a development that surprised the panel, Judge Lynn opened the hearing by signaling strong interest in the retaliation theory. She appeared skeptical of DOJ's argument that Anthropic's refusal was conduct rather than speech, interrupting to ask whether Anthropic going to the press to publicize the government's demands did not constitute protected speech. The panel discusses the distinction between the government's right to choose not to contract with Anthropic (which Anthropic concedes) and its use of rarely invoked national security statutes to effectively destroy the company's business relationships. Roger Parloff notes that Trump and Hegseth's social media posts framing the dispute in terms of "wokeism" strengthen the retaliation argument. A related case in the D.C. Circuit under a different statute (41 USC 4713) could produce a conflicting outcome, given the panel includes two Trump appointees. That statute uses broader language, referring to "person" rather than "adversary." The episode closes with the panel predicting a ruling before the end of the week, with the government's supplemental brief due in 27 hours. Kate Klonick predicts Anthropic will ultimately prevail and suggests the government may not appeal, while Molly Roberts thinks the administration might fight on as a matter of principle given the national security framing.

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from The Lawfare Podcast