Anthropic, PBC v. United States Department of War, et al.
Issue
In *Anthropic, PBC v. United States Department of War, et al.*, the defendant-appellants argue that the Ninth Circuit should hold its interlocutory appeal in abeyance pending the D.C. Circuit's resolution of a parallel challenge to the same supply chain risk designations — raising the question of whether one circuit's expedited review of overlapping statutory questions justifies suspending an independent appellate proceeding in a sister circuit. The question is non-obvious because the two proceedings rest on distinct statutory authorities (10 U.S.C. § 3252 and 41 U.S.C. § 4713), the district court's injunction also covers social-media conduct not before the D.C. Circuit, and Anthropic has pressed constitutional claims that would survive any purely statutory ruling in the government's favor.
What Happened
Defendants-Appellants — a coalition of more than thirty federal agencies and agency heads — filed this motion in the Ninth Circuit on April 22, 2026, at the interlocutory appeal stage of proceedings challenging a district court preliminary injunction. The motion asks the Ninth Circuit to hold appeal No. 26-2011 in abeyance until the D.C. Circuit resolves No. 26-1049, where oral argument is set for May 19, 2026; in the alternative, the government seeks a 30-day extension of its opening brief deadline to June 1, 2026. The government's core argument is judicial economy: because both proceedings share the same administrative record and substantially identical legal questions, allowing the D.C. Circuit to rule first could narrow or eliminate the need for full Ninth Circuit briefing. The motion cites no case law, relying entirely on general docket-management principles, and characterizes a potential D.C. Circuit ruling upholding the § 4713 designation as one that would "practically moot" the Ninth Circuit § 3252 injunction — a proposition the filing does not support with authority or doctrinal analysis. The government also cites Anthropic's own procedural notice of overlap between the two proceedings as though it were a substantive concession in favor of abeyance, though Anthropic expressly reserved its position on the motion itself.
Why It Matters
The government is asking the Ninth Circuit to pause and let the D.C. Circuit go first — a tactically sensible request if the government anticipates a favorable ruling there that could undermine Anthropic's position in both forums. The practical stakes are asymmetric: abeyance would delay any Ninth Circuit ruling while the existing preliminary injunction remains nominally in place, but the government is simultaneously arguing in Washington that no injunction should exist at all. The motion's most contestable claim — that a favorable D.C. Circuit ruling on § 4713 would practically dissolve the § 3252 injunction — is legally underdeveloped and gives Anthropic a clear target in opposition, since the two statutes are independent grants of authority and the district court's injunction rests on additional constitutional grounds the D.C. Circuit will not reach. More broadly, the case surfaces an open and consequential question: when the same executive action is challenged simultaneously in multiple circuits under distinct legal frameworks, what weight — if any — should one circuit give to a sister circuit's expedited schedule? If the Ninth Circuit denies abeyance and the circuits diverge, pressure for en banc or Supreme Court review of the underlying designation authority would intensify quickly.
Related Filings
Other proceedings in the same litigation tracked by this monitor.
How accurate was this summary?