Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

8 

GEORGIA v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

“merge” prior to publication in the “official” code, the very
provision calling for that merger makes clear that the an-
notations serve as commentary, not law. 

As additional evidence that the annotations do not repre-
sent the will of the people, the General Assembly does not
enact  statutory  annotations  under  its  legislative  power.
See Ga. Const., Art. III, §1, ¶1 (vesting the legislative power
in the General Assembly).  To enact state law, Georgia em-
ploys a process of bicameralism and presentment similar to
that embodied in the United States Constitution.  See Ga. 
Const., Art. III, §5; Art. V, §2, ¶4.  The annotations do not 
go through this process, a fact that even the majority must
acknowledge.    Ante,  at  10;  Ga.  S.  52,  Reg.  Sess.,  §54(b) 
(2019–2020) (“Annotations . . . except as otherwise provided 
in the Code . . . are not enacted as statutes by the provisions
of this Act”). 

Second, unlike judges and legislators, the creators of an-
notations 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 anal-
ogous to other copyrightable materials.  See Brief for Mat-
thew Bender & Co., Inc., as Amicus Curiae 4–7. 

Lastly, the annotations do not impede fair notice of the
laws.  As just stated, the annotations do not carry the bind-
ing  force  of  law.  They  simply  summarize  independent 
sources  of  legal  information  and  consolidate  them  in  one 
place.  Thus, OCGA annotations serve a similar function to 
other copyrighted research tools provided by private parties
such as the American Law Reports and Westlaw, which also
contain information of great “practical significance.”  Ante, 
at 17.  Compare, e.g., OCGA §34–9–260 (annotation for Cho 
Carwash Property, L. L. C. v. Everett, 326 Ga. App. 6, 755 
S.  E.  2d  823  (2014))  with  Ga.  Code  Ann.  §34–9–260 
(Westlaw’s annotation for the same).