Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

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

11 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

privately created annotations in Callaghan, Georgia’s stat-
utory annotations at issue in this case are copyrightable. 

III 
The majority reads this Court’s precedents differently.  In 
its view, the Court in Banks held that judges are not “au-
thors” within the scope of the Copyright Act for “whatever
work they perform in their capacity as judges,” 128 U. S., at
253, so the same must be true for legislators, see ante, at 8– 
9.  Accordingly, works created by legislators in their legis-
lative capacity are not “original works of authorship,” §102, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  copyrighted.    This  argument  is 
flawed in multiple respects. 

A 

Most  notably,  the  majority’s  textual  analysis  hinges  on 
accepting  that  its  construction  of  “authorship,”  i.e.,  all 
works produced in a judge’s or legislator’s official capacity,
was so well established by our 19th-century precedents that 
Congress incorporated it into the multiple revisions of the 
Copyright Act.  See ante, at 12–13.  Such confidence is ques-
tionable, to say the least. 

The  majority’s  understanding  of  the  government  edicts
doctrine  seems  to  have  been  lost  on  dozens  of  States  and 
Territories, as well as the lower courts in this case.  As al-
ready  stated,  the  25  jurisdictions  with  official  annotated 
codes apparently did not view this Court’s precedents as es-
tablishing the “official duties” definition of authorship.  See 
Brief for State of Arkansas et al. as Amici Curiae.4  And if 

—————— 

4 According  to  one  study  published  in  2000,  approximately  half  of 
States owned copyright in official state statutory compilations, court re-
ports,  or  administrative  regulations.    Dmitrieva,  State  Ownership  of 
Copyrights in Primary Law Materials, 23 Hastings Com. & Entertain-
ment L. J. 81, 83, 97–105 (2000).  The majority attempts to undermine
this study by emphasizing that some of these States owned copyright in 
primary law materials.  Ante, at 13, n. 3.  This misunderstands the point.