Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–1150 
_________________ 

GEORGIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

[April 27, 2020] 

JUSTICE  THOMAS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  ALITO  joins,  and
with  whom  JUSTICE  BREYER  joins  as  to  all  but  Part  II–A
and footnote 6, dissenting. 

According to the majority, this Court’s 19th-century “gov-
ernment edicts” precedents clearly stand for the proposition 
that  “judges  and  legislators  cannot  serve  as  authors  [for 
copyright purposes] when they produce works in their offi-
cial capacity.”  Ante, at 11.  And, after straining to conclude
that the Georgia Code Revision Commission (Commission) 
is an arm of the Georgia Legislature, ante, at 9–10, the ma-
jority concludes that Georgia cannot hold a copyright in the
annotations that are included as part of the Official Code of 
Georgia Annotated (OCGA).  This ruling will likely come as
a shock to the 25 other jurisdictions—22 States, 2 Territo-
ries,  and  the  District  of  Columbia—that  rely  on  arrange-
ments similar to Georgia’s to produce annotated codes.  See 
Brief for State of Arkansas et al. as Amici Curiae 15, and 
App. to id., at 1.  Perhaps these jurisdictions all overlooked 
this  Court’s  purportedly  clear  guidance.    Or  perhaps  the 
widespread  use  of  these  arrangements  indicates  that  to-
day’s decision extends the government edicts doctrine to a 
new  context,  rather  than  simply  “confirm[ing]”  what  the
precedents have always held.  See ante, at 5.  Because I be-
lieve  we  should  “leave  to  Congress  the  task  of  deciding
whether  the  Copyright  Act  needs  an  upgrade,”  American