Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Syllabus 

(Emphasis  added.)    Georgia’s  annotations  do  not  fit  that  description 
because they are prepared by a legislative body that cannot be deemed 
the  “author”  of  the  works  it  creates  in  its  official  capacity.    Second, 
Georgia draws a negative inference from the fact that the Act excludes 
from copyright protection works prepared by Federal Government of-
ficials, without establishing a similar rule for State officials.  §§101, 
105.  That rule, however, applies to all federal officials, regardless of 
the nature and scope of their duties.  It does not suggest an intent to 
displace the much narrower government edicts doctrine with respect 
to the States. 
  Moving on from the text, Georgia invokes what it views as the offi-
cial position of the Copyright Office, as reflected in the Compendium 
of U. S. Copyright Office Practices.  The Compendium, however, is a 
non-binding administrative manual and is largely consistent with this 
Court’s  position.    Georgia  also  appeals  to  copyright  policy,  but  such 
requests should be addressed to Congress, not the courts. 
  Georgia attempts to frame the government edicts doctrine to focus 
exclusively on whether a particular work has the force of law.  But that 
understanding cannot be squared with precedent—especially Banks.  
Moreover,  Georgia’s  conception  of  the  doctrine  as  distinguishing  be-
tween different categories of content with different effects has less of 
a textual footing than the traditional formulation, which focuses on the 
identity of the author.  Georgia’s characterization of the OCGA anno-
tations as non-binding and non-authoritative undersells the practical 
significance of the annotations to litigants and citizens.   And its  ap-
proach would logically  permit  States  to  hide  all  non-binding  judicial 
and legislative work product—including dissents and legislative his-
tory—behind a paywall.  Pp. 11–18. 

906 F. 3d 1229, affirmed. 

  ROBERTS,  C. J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  SO-
TOMAYOR,  KAGAN,  GORSUCH,  and  KAVANAUGH,  JJ.,  joined.    THOMAS,  J., 
filed  a  dissenting  opinion,  in  which  ALITO,  J.,  joined,  and  in  which 
BREYER, J., joined as to all but Part II–A and footnote 6.  GINSBURG, J., 
filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined.