Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-877_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

Cite as:  589 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

(1857);  Consolidated  Fruit-Jar  Co.  v.  Wright,  94  U. S.  92, 
96  (1877));  see  also  Merrill,  The  Landscape  of  Constitu-
tional Property, 86 Va. L. Rev. 885, 887 (2000) (noting that 
the “Court has not always been attentive to the ‘property’ 
threshold” of the Due Process Clauses).  Because the parties 
agree that petitioners’ copyrights are property, and because 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  does  not  authorize  this  stat-
ute’s abrogation of state sovereign immunity either way, we 
need  not  resolve  this  open  question  today.    I  would,  how-
ever,  be  willing  to  consider  the  matter  in  an  appropriate 
case. 

For these reasons, I join all of the Court’s opinion except 
for the final paragraph in Part II–A and the final paragraph
in Part II–B.