Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

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

3 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

all  of  which  were  originally  prepared  by  the  opinion’s  au-
thoring judge.  This Court held that these materials were 
not the proper subject of copyright.  In reaching that con-
clusion,  the  Court  grounded  its  analysis  in  its  interpreta-
tion of the word “author” in the Copyright Act.  It anchored 
this  interpretation  in  the  “public  policy”  that  “the  judge
who, in his judicial capacity, prepares the opinion or deci-
sion [and other materials]” is not “regarded as their author 
or their proprietor, in the sense of [the Copyright Act], so as 
to be able to confer any title by assignment.”  Banks, 128 
U. S., at 253.  The Court supported this conclusion by stat-
ing  that  “there  has  always  been  a  judicial  consensus  . . . 
that no copyright could[,] under the statutes passed by Con-
gress, be secured in the products of the labor done by judi-
cial officers in the discharge of their judicial duties.”  Ibid. 
(emphasis deleted).  And the Court observed that this rule 
reflected the view that the “authentic exposition and inter-
pretation of the law . . . is free for publication to all,” which
in turn prevents a judge from qualifying as an author.  Ibid. 
Importantly, the Court also briefly discussed whether the
State of Ohio could directly hold the copyright.  In answer-
ing  this  question,  the  Court  did  not  suggest  that  States
were  categorically  prohibited  from  holding  copyrights  as 
authors or assignees.  Instead, the Court simply noted that
the State fell outside the scope of the Act because it was not 
a  “resident”  or  “citizen  of  the  United  States,”  as  then  re-
quired by statute, and because it did not meet other statu-
tory criteria.  Ibid.  The Court felt it necessary to observe,
however, that “[w]hether the State could take out a copy-
right for itself, or could enjoy the benefit of one taken out 
by  an  individual  for  it,  as  the  assignee  of  a  citizen  of  the
United States or a resident therein, who should be the au-
thor of a book, is a question not involved in the present case, 
and we refrain from considering it.”  Ibid.
  Finally, in Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617 (1888), the