> Why can't they expedite for special cases?

To a certain extent this exists, but given that SCOTUS has been stacked with GOPers…

> The shadow docket is a break from ordinary procedure. Such cases receive very limited briefings and are typically decided a week or less after an application is filed. The process generally results in short, unsigned rulings. In contrast, merits cases take months, include extensive briefing and public oral argument, and result in lengthy written opinions detailing the reasoning of the majority and of any concurring and dissenting justices.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket

Mostly, the law is not creating the right incentives. In this case in particular, I don't think it's so much a matter of speed: I suspect the current US admin would still sow the chaos they do to the same degree if it was ruled illegal within a week instead of within months.

The law is normally supposed to repay whatever damage you suffered while the law was running.

I thought I hated Web 2.0/3.0, but "age of twitter" made me actually feel ill.

That's why the exploit of a social media savvy government is to overflow the system with so much slop (literally and figuratively) the law can never catch up. Your bug is their feature.

Doesn't every company and person consider their case special?

Law was not in effect yet, and now it’s repealed. Cest la vie.

They do. It's called a preliminary injunction, which Anthropic obtained back in March. And this current decision is "summary judgement" which is another way to expedite a court case.

injunction in question: https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rYKRX7EU...

Such an injunction is granted when a party can show they have "irreparable harm" if not for the injunction and would likely succeed on the merits of the case.

> Anthropic has submitted concrete, non-speculative evidence of the ongoing harms to its liberty interests. Within days, many large enterprise customers signaled that publicly doing business with Anthropic over competitors was not worth it. (Dkt. No. 6-4 ¶ 16.) Three government contractor customers terminated their contracts with Anthropic, or were instructed to do so by Defendants; three deals valued at over $180 million fell apart despite being on the verge of closing; potential partners demanded additional protective contractual provisions such as unilateral termination; customers asked to cut short their contracts or reduced their amount, in some instances specifically mentioning the Challenged Actions; and others switched from Claude to competing generative AI tools. (Dkt. No. 6-4 ¶¶ 11–19; Dkt. No. 6-3 ¶ 33.) Anthropic’s Chief Financial Officer, Krishna Rao, projects that, depending on how broadly Anthropic’s customers interpret the Challenged Actions, Anthropic could lose between hundreds of millions and multiple billions of dollars in 2026 revenue. (Dkt. No. 6-5 ¶ 6.) Moreover, Defendants do not contest that Anthropic will be unable to obtain compensatory relief from the government, making its economic harm likely irreparable. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 993 F.3d 640, 677 (9th Cir. 2021); California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 581 (9th Cir. 2018).

The current decision discussed in the article was also expedited since it is Anthropic winning a motion for summary judgement.

That is, before a trial even happens to assess who is correct about a factual dispute, parties are allowed to try to win entirely on legal grounds. The judge assumes everything the United States alleges is true, then sees if Anthropic would win anyways.

From the current decision:

> Under the APA, an agency action must be set aside and held unlawful if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,” “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C), (D). Anthropic has shown that the Hegseth Directive and the Supply Chain Designation were in excess of statutory authority, contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious.

>Why can't they expedite for special cases?

They can, the preliminary injunction is a thing that can be invoked very quickly to stop actions before the law decides.

Anthropic didn't suffer any irreparable harm and they're free to seek damages if they wish, but they won't because it doesn't really matter to them. This whole mess has just been advertising that has kept them in the headlines and very likely has been more beneficial than harmful.

It's less slow in countries that aren't extremely litigious and backed up with frivolous cases, underfunded in staff, with excessive penalties and racial profiling causing overflows of cases and convictions for minor offenses, resulting in the world's largest prison population and the world's most backed up legal system.