Court rules Pentagon can blacklist Anthropic for refusing to enable Claude features
Court rules Pentagon can blacklist Anthropic for refusing to enable Claude features
法院裁定：五角大楼有权因 Anthropic 拒绝启用 Claude 功能而将其列入黑名单
A US appeals court today approved the Department of Defense’s blacklisting of Anthropic technology. Judges decided the Trump administration had authority to blacklist Anthropic for withholding certain AI features from the military even if Anthropic had no malicious intent. 美国一家上诉法院今日批准了国防部将 Anthropic 技术列入黑名单的决定。法官裁定，特朗普政府有权因 Anthropic 向军方隐瞒某些人工智能功能而将其列入黑名单，即使 Anthropic 并无恶意。
In a 2-1 ruling issued by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a panel of judges said the “case raises profoundly difficult questions about the appropriate military uses of an almost unimaginably powerful new technology.” 在哥伦比亚特区联邦巡回上诉法院以 2 比 1 作出的裁决中，法官小组表示，该“案件提出了关于如何恰当利用一种强大到难以想象的新技术进行军事用途的深刻难题。”
The US “raises the deeply sobering prospect of overly constrained AI models shutting down unexpectedly and thus causing important military operations to fail. Anthropic raises the deeply sobering prospect of unconstrained AI models hallucinating inappropriate targets for lethal military force,” the ruling said. 裁决书称，美国政府“提出了一个令人深思的前景，即过度受限的 AI 模型可能会意外关闭，从而导致重要的军事行动失败。而 Anthropic 则提出了另一个令人深思的前景，即不受约束的 AI 模型可能会产生幻觉，从而为致命的军事力量选定不当目标。”
Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “must determine how best to balance the competing risks,” the court said. “In doing so here, the Secretary did not transgress any limits on his authority under the Supply Chain Security Act or the Constitution. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review.” 法院表示，特朗普和国防部长皮特·赫格塞斯（Pete Hegseth）“必须确定如何最好地平衡这些相互冲突的风险。在此过程中，国防部长并未超越《供应链安全法》或宪法赋予他的权力限制。因此，我们驳回了复审请求。”
The same court previously denied Anthropic’s emergency motion for a stay in April. The two judges who ruled against Anthropic were both appointed by Trump and served in the first Trump administration. Judge Gregory Katsas was previously deputy counsel to the president, and Judge Neomi Rao served in the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget. 该法院此前曾在四月份驳回了 Anthropic 的紧急暂缓执行动议。做出不利于 Anthropic 裁决的两名法官均由特朗普任命，并曾在特朗普第一任期内任职。格雷戈里·卡萨斯（Gregory Katsas）法官曾担任总统副法律顾问，尼奥米·拉奥（Neomi Rao）法官则曾在特朗普政府的管理和预算办公室任职。
Two courts, two different decisions
两家法院，两种截然不同的裁决
Anthropic sued the Trump administration in March after it ordered federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s products and banned defense contractors from doing any business with Anthropic. Anthropic may appeal today’s ruling, either by asking for an en banc review with all of the appeals court judges or by petitioning the Supreme Court. 今年 3 月，在特朗普政府下令联邦机构停止使用 Anthropic 产品并禁止国防承包商与该公司进行任何业务往来后，Anthropic 对政府提起了诉讼。Anthropic 可能会对今天的裁决提出上诉，方式包括请求上诉法院全体法官进行复审（en banc review），或向最高法院请愿。
“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision,” an Anthropic spokesperson told CNBC. “Another federal court has already held the government’s parallel designation unlawful. We remain confident in our position and are considering all options, including further review.” “我们尊重但不同意法院的裁决，”Anthropic 发言人告诉 CNBC。“另一家联邦法院此前已经裁定政府的类似指定行为不合法。我们对自己的立场充满信心，并正在考虑所有选项，包括进一步的审查。”
Despite the ongoing legal battle, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently said the Trump administration and Anthropic have patched up their relationship and are “in tune.” 尽管法律诉讼仍在继续，但商务部长霍华德·卢特尼克（Howard Lutnick）最近表示，特朗普政府与 Anthropic 已经修复了关系，双方目前“步调一致”。
Two courts have been reviewing the US blacklisting of Anthropic. A judge in US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled last month that the action was illegal because Anthropic does not meet the definition of a supply-chain risk, which is limited to “the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert… a covered system.” 目前有两家法院正在审查美国将 Anthropic 列入黑名单的行为。美国加利福尼亚北区联邦地区法院的一名法官上个月裁定，该行为是非法的，因为 Anthropic 不符合“供应链风险”的定义，该定义仅限于“对手可能破坏、恶意引入不需要的功能，或以其他方式颠覆……受保护系统的风险”。
Today’s ruling from the DC Circuit did not dispute the district court’s primary finding. But it said the district court was tasked with reviewing whether the decision was allowed under one law while the appeals court has exclusive jurisdiction to review the decision under a different, more permissive grant of authority. 哥伦比亚特区巡回法院今天的裁决并未反驳地方法院的主要结论。但该法院指出，地方法院的任务是审查该决定在某项法律下是否被允许，而上诉法院则拥有根据另一项更宽松的授权条款对该决定进行审查的专属管辖权。
The district court decision found a violation of 10 U.S.C. § 3252, in which supply chain risks are limited to malicious actions by adversaries. The appeals court reviewed the blacklisting under 41 U.S.C. § 4713, which doesn’t have the same restrictions. Notably, Congress gave the DC Circuit appeals court exclusive jurisdiction to review procurement actions taken under Section 4713 designations. 地方法院的裁决认定政府违反了《美国法典》第 10 卷第 3252 条，该条款将供应链风险限制为对手的恶意行为。而上诉法院则根据《美国法典》第 41 卷第 4713 条审查了此次黑名单事件，该条款没有同样的限制。值得注意的是，国会赋予了哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院对根据第 4713 条指定所采取的采购行动进行审查的专属管辖权。
Bad motive not required
无需恶意动机
Today’s ruling said: We have no quarrel with the Northern District’s conclusion that use of the critical noun adversary, combined with the sinister connotation fairly pervading the string of sabotage, maliciously introduce, and otherwise subvert, indicate that bad motive is required to support a designation under section 3252. Likewise, we have no quarrel with the Northern District’s conclusion that Anthropic has acted with no such bad motive in its dealings with the Department. But as explained at length above, no such bad motive is required to support a designation under the much broader definition set forth in section 4713. 今天的裁决指出：我们并不反对北区法院的结论，即使用“对手”这一关键名词，结合“破坏”、“恶意引入”和“以其他方式颠覆”等词汇所蕴含的险恶含义，表明根据第 3252 条进行指定需要具备恶意动机。同样，我们也不反对北区法院关于 Anthropic 在与国防部打交道时并无此类恶意动机的结论。但如上所述，根据第 4713 条中更广泛的定义，进行此类指定并不需要具备恶意动机。
The US designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk under both 3252 and 4713. The latter statute defines “supply chain risk” as “the risk that any person may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, extract data, or otherwise manipulate the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, maintenance, disposition, or retirement” of covered technology products “so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise manipulate the function, use, or operation of” those products or the information stored or transmitted on them, the court said. 法院表示，美国根据第 3252 条和第 4713 条将 Anthropic 指定为供应链风险。后一项法规将“供应链风险”定义为：“任何人可能破坏、恶意引入不需要的功能、提取数据，或以其他方式操纵”受保护技术产品的“设计、完整性、制造、生产、分销、安装、操作、维护、处置或退役，从而监视、拒绝、破坏或以其他方式操纵”这些产品或存储/传输在其中的信息的功能、使用或操作的风险。
The use of “any person” shows that the definition is not limited to adversaries or foreign entities, the court said. The court also pointed to the word “deny,” which it said applies to Anthropic preventing the US from using certain Claude features. 法院指出，“任何人”一词的使用表明该定义并不局限于对手或外国实体。法院还特别提到了“拒绝”（deny）一词，称其适用于 Anthropic 阻止美国使用某些 Claude 功能的情况。
“In sum, we conclude that the Secretary’s concern about Anthropic disabling Claude from performing lawful actions requested by the Department qualifies as a ‘supply chain risk’ within the meaning of section 4713,” the court majority said. It also said “the Department reasonably feared that Anthropic might manipulate Claude’s design to prevent it from performing national-security functions that the Department deems contractually authorized and necessary.” “总之，我们认为国防部长对 Anthropic 禁止 Claude 执行国防部所要求的合法行动的担忧，符合第 4713 条所定义的‘供应链风险’，”法院多数派表示。法院还称，“国防部有理由担心 Anthropic 可能会操纵 Claude 的设计，以阻止其执行国防部认为在合同授权范围内且必要的国家安全职能。”
Judge’s dissent
法官异议
The dissenting vote was cast by Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee. Henderson disputed the majority’s reading of the definition in 4713, saying that when “viewed in their statutory context, the verbs at issue are all directed at deliberately impeding or eavesdropping on the ‘function, use, or operation’ of a covered article that has entered the federal supply chain.” 持异议的是由乔治·H·W·布什任命的凯伦·亨德森（Karen Henderson）法官。亨德森对多数派对第 4713 条定义的解读表示质疑，称当“从法律背景来看，所涉及的动词都是针对故意阻碍或窃听已进入联邦供应链的受保护物品的‘功能、使用或操作’。”