Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

The  Eleventh  Circuit  reversed.  906  F. 3d  1229.    The 
Court began by reviewing the three 19th-century cases in 
which we articulated the government edicts doctrine.  See 
Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591 (1834); Banks v. Manchester, 
128  U. S.  244  (1888);  Callaghan  v.  Myers,  128  U. S.  617 
(1888).  The  Court  understood  those  cases  to  establish  a 
“rule” based on an interpretation of the statutory term “au-
thor” that “works created by  courts in the performance of 
their official duties did not belong to the judges” but instead
fell  “in  the  public  domain.”  906  F. 3d,  at  1239.    In  the 
Court’s view, that rule “derive[s] from first principles about
the nature of law in our democracy.”  Ibid.  In a democracy,
the Court reasoned, “the People” are “the constructive au-
thors”  of  the  law,  and  judges  and  legislators  are  merely 
“draftsmen . . . exercising delegated authority.”  Ibid.  The 
Court  therefore  deemed  the  “ultimate  inquiry”  to  be
whether a work is “attributable to the constructive author-
ship of the People.”  Id., at 1242.  The Court identified three 
factors to guide that inquiry: “the identity of the public offi-
cial who created the work; the nature of the work; and the 
process by which the work was produced.”  Id., at 1254.  The 
Court found that each of those factors cut in favor of treat-
ing the OCGA annotations as government edicts authored 
by the People.  It therefore rejected the Commission’s asser-
tion of copyright, vacated the injunction against PRO, and
directed that judgment be entered for PRO.

We granted certiorari.  588 U. S. ___ (2019). 

II 
We hold that the annotations in Georgia’s Official Code
are  ineligible  for  copyright  protection,  though  for  reasons 
distinct  from  those  relied  on  by  the  Court  of  Appeals.    A 
careful  examination  of  our  government  edicts  precedents
reveals a straightforward rule based on the identity of the 
author.  Under  the  government  edicts  doctrine,  judges—
and,  we  now  confirm,  legislators—may  not  be  considered