Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-915_pol1.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

Syllabus 

the  consequences  of  an  inaccurate  application  by  claiming  lack  of 
knowledge.  As in other legal contexts, courts need not automatically 
accept a copyright holder’s claim that it was unaware of the relevant 
legal requirements.  Willful blindness may support a finding of actual 
knowledge.    Additionally,  circumstantial  evidence  may  demonstrate 
that an applicant was actually aware of, or willfully blind to, legally 
inaccurate  information.    Second,  the  legal  maxim  that  “ignorance  of 
the law is no excuse” does not apply in this civil case concerning the 
scope of a statutory safe harbor that arises from ignorance of collateral 
legal requirements.  Finally, the “knowledge” question that the parties 
have argued, and which the Court decides, was a “subsidiary question 
fairly included” in the petition’s question presented.  See this Court’s 
Rule  14.1(a).    And  the  Ninth  Circuit  explicitly  addressed  the 
knowledge issue when it held that Unicolors’ “knowledge” of the facts 
underlying the inaccuracy on its application was sufficient to demon-
strate  knowledge  under  §411(b)(1)(A)  without  regard  to  Unicolors’ 
knowledge of the relevant law.  Pp. 8–9. 

959 F. 3d 1194, vacated and remanded.   

  BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined.  THOMAS, 
J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J. joined, and in which  GOR-
SUCH, J. joined, except as to Part II.