Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc.

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc.
Term: 2019
Important Dates
Argument: December 2, 2019
Decided: April 27, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
5-4
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer


Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 2, 2019, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. It concerned copyright law and the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA).

The court affirmed the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in a 5-4 ruling, holding "under the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of the works they create in the course of their official duties." Therefore, "the OCGA annotations are ineligible for copyright protection."[1] Click here for more information.


HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In 2015, the Georgia Code Revision Commission sued the nonprofit organization, Public.Resource.Org (PRO), for copyright infringement. The Commission argued that PRO could not distribute copies of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA). PRO disagreed, arguing the OCGA was in the public domain. The Northern District of Georgia ruled in favor of the Commission and barred PRO from distributing the OCGA. On appeal, the 11th Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part the district court's ruling, concluding the State of Georgia had no valid copyright. The State of Georgia appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.[2]
  • The issue: Whether the government edicts doctrine extends to—and thus renders uncopyrightable—works that lack the force of law, such as the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.[3]
  • The outcome: The court affirmed the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in a 5-4 ruling, holding "under the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of the works they create in the course of their official duties." Therefore, "the OCGA annotations are ineligible for copyright protection."[1]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • April 27, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the 11th Circuit's decision.
    • December 2, 2019: Oral argument was held.
    • June 24, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • March 1, 2019: The State of Georgia, the petitioner, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • October 19, 2018: The 11th Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part the Northern District of Georgia's ruling and remanded the case.

    Background

    On July 21, 2015, the Georgia Code Revision Commission (Commission) sued Public.Resource.Org (PRO), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, for copyright infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Commission sought injunctive relief against PRO's distribution of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA). PRO responded to the complaint, asking the court for a declaratory judgment that "the State of Georgia has no valid copyright in any portion of the O.C.G.A. because the O.C.G.A. is in the public domain." The district court granted the Commission's motion, denied PRO's motion, and entered a permanent injunction against PRO.[2]

    PRO appealed the district court's decision. On October 19, 2018, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and vacated in part the Northern District of Georgia's ruling and remanded the case. The 11th Circuit opinion said "the annotations in the OCGA are attributable to the constructive authorship of the People. ... The resulting work is intrinsically public domain material, belonging to the People, and, as such, must be free for publication by all. As a result, no valid copyright can subsist in these works."[2]

    On March 1, 2019, the State of Georgia filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing SCOTUS "should grant review to correct the Eleventh Circuit’s misapplication of [the Supreme Court's] decisions and resolve the lower courts' considerable confusion regarding the government edicts doctrine."[4]

    The government edicts doctrine originated in the 1800s with three U.S. Supreme Court cases that held judicial opinions are not copyrightable. Lower courts later expanded the doctrine to apply to state law. The State of Georgia argued the government edicts doctrine did not apply to state law.[4]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

    Questions presented:
    • Whether the government edicts doctrine extends to—and thus renders uncopyrightable—works that lack the force of law, such as the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.[3]

    Outcome

    In a 5-4 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, holding "under the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of the works they create in the course of their official duties." Therefore, "the OCGA annotations are ineligible for copyright protection."[1]

    Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Samuel Alito and by Justice Stephen Breyer in all but Part II-A and footnote 6. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Breyer.

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:[1]

    “

    Under what has been dubbed the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of—and therefore cannot copyright—the works they create in the course of their official duties. ...

    Under the government edicts doctrine, judges—and, we now confirm, legislators—may not be considered the “authors” of the works they produce in the course of their official duties as judges and legislators. That rule applies regardless of whether a given material carries the force of law. And it applies to the annotations here because they are authored by an arm of the legislature in the course of its official duties. ...

    Under our precedents, therefore, copyright does not vest in works that are (1) created by judges and legislators (2) in the course of their judicial and legislative duties.[5]

    		”
    —Chief Justice Roberts

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Thomas

    Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Alito in full and by Justice Breyer as to all but Part II-A and footnote 6.

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:

    “

    It must follow from our precedents that statutes and regulations cannot be copyrighted, but accompanying notes lacking legal force can be. ...

    Allowing annotations to be copyrighted does not run afoul of any of these possible justifications for the government edicts doctrine. First, unlike judicial opinions and statutes, these annotations do not even purport to embody the will of the people because they are not law. The General Assembly of Georgia has made abundantly clear through a variety of provisions that the annotations do not create any binding obligations. ...

    Unlike judges and legislators, the creators of annotations are incentivized by the copyright laws to produce a desirable product that will eventually earn them a profit. And though the Commission may require Lexis to follow strict guidelines, the independent synthesis, analysis, and creative drafting behind the annotations makes them analogous to other copyrightable materials. ...

    In addition to being flawed as a textual and precedential matter, the majority’s rule will prove difficult to administer. ... The majority’s rule will leave in the lurch the many States, private parties, and legal researchers who relied on the previously bright-line rule. Perhaps, to the detriment of all, many States will stop producing annotated codes altogether. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Thomas[1]

    Justice Ginsburg

    Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Breyer.

    In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote:

    “

    The OCGA annotations, in my appraisal, do not rank as part of the Georgia Legislature’s lawmaking process for three reasons.

    First, the annotations are not created contemporaneously with the statutes to which they pertain; instead, the annotations comment on statutes already enacted. In short, annotating begins only after lawmaking ends. This sets the OCGA annotations apart from uncopyrightable legislative materials like committee reports, generated before a law’s enactment, and tied tightly to the task of law-formulation.

    Second, the OCGA annotations are descriptive rather than prescriptive. ... This characteristic of the annotations distinguishes them from preenactment legislative materials that touch or concern the correct interpretation of the legislature’s work.

    Third, and of prime importance, the OCGA annotations are “given for the purpose of convenient reference” by the public, §1–1–7 (2019); they aim to inform the citizenry at large, they do not address, particularly, those seated in legislative chambers. ...

    The requirement that the statutory portions of the OCGA “shall be merged with annotations,” §1–1–1, does not render the annotations anything other than explanatory, referential, or commentarial material. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Ginsburg[1] (citations omitted)

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Supreme Court of the United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., decided April 28, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Code Revision Commission v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., decided October 19, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc.: "Questions presented," accessed June 26, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc.: "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed June 26, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral argument - Audio," accessed December 9, 2019
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Georgia_v._Public.Resource.Org_Inc.&oldid=10478618"