A litigation boutique based in Oakland, California, representing plaintiffs and defendants in complex civil litigation.
UPDATE: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Rules in Favor of Anthropic in First Amendment Challenge
Earlier this year, Norton Law filed an amicus brief in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, on behalf of Freedom Economy Business Association and a group of values-led investors, in support of Anthropic PBC in its challenge to recent actions by the Department of War. The case – Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War et al., case number 3:26-cv-01996, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California – has now resulted in a federal court ruling on August 27, 2026 that the Department of War’s actions constituted unlawful retaliation for Anthropic’s protected speech.
The Court vacated the supply-chain risk designation and the directive barring defense contractors from doing business with Anthropic and entered a permanent injunction against implementation of the challenged actions.
The Brief and the Case
The Secretary of War had directed federal military contractors to cease all commercial activity with Anthropic and designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk”—actions taken in response to Anthropic’s refusal to make its generative AI technology available for mass surveillance of U.S. citizens or for fully autonomous lethal weapons.
Norton Law’s brief argued that the Department of War exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority, that its designation of Anthropic as a “supply chain risk” was contrary to law, and that its actions, expressly directed at Anthropic’s policy views on the appropriate limits on generative artificial intelligence, violated the First Amendment.
The Court’s decision recognizes a critical principle: while the government may choose its business partners, it cannot use procurement and regulatory authority to punish a company for expressing views the government dislikes. The ruling reinforces that stable markets depend on predictable rules and confidence that companies and investors will not face government retaliation for the values they express or the principles by which they operate.
The firm’s amicus brief was authored by Fred Norton, Jo Levy, Josephine K. Petrick, Celine G. Purcell, Hayley Landman, Heather C. Bates, and Saja Spearman-Weaver, with support from paralegal Celeste Peifer.
Read the Order On Cross Motions For Summary Judgment; Granting Motion To Supplement The Administrative Record
Read Norton Law’s Proposed Brief Of Amici Curiae Freedom Economy Business Association and Other Values-Led Investors In Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment