I recommend reading the law on which this action was based.

Is this question supposed to have anything to do with the situation at hand, where what they did was refuse to perform certain categories of service?

Well, you could also say what's the point of laws when courts can interpret them however they like? There's never a neat answer in such multi-valent systems, is there?

Google the "arbitrary and capricious" legal standard. And try to stick to the facts about Anthropic's actions.

The "mark" was capricious and vindictive. That's at the heart of why it was injuncted.

What's the point of the Constitution when the government can ignore it at their discretion?

To act as a safety valve against foreign companies acting as proxies for an adversary. Not for use against an American company that won't let you retroactively violate already agreed to terms. Anthropic isn't jeopardizing the supply chain, they simply will not let the Government force them into providing services they otherwise wouldn't.