Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 4

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

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] 

CHIEF  JUSTICE  ROBERTS  delivered  the  opinion  of  the 

Court. 

The Copyright Act grants potent, decades-long monopoly
protection  for  “original  works  of  authorship.”    17  U. S. C. 
§102(a).  The question in this case is whether that protec-
tion  extends  to  the  annotations  contained  in  Georgia’s
official annotated code. 

We hold that it does not.  Over a century ago, we recog-
nized  a  limitation  on  copyright  protection  for  certain 
government  work  product,  rooted  in  the  Copyright  Act’s 
“authorship”  requirement.  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. 

We  have  previously  applied  that  doctrine  to  hold  that
non-binding, explanatory legal materials are not copyright-
able when created by judges who possess the authority to 
make and interpret the law.  See Banks v. Manchester, 128 
U. S. 244 (1888).  We now recognize that the same logic ap-
plies to non-binding, explanatory legal materials created by