Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-877_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

the scope of unconstitutional patent infringement as intentional con-
duct for which there is no adequate state remedy.  527 U. S., at 642– 
643, 645.  Because Congress failed to identify a pattern of unconstitu-
tional  patent  infringement  when  it  enacted  the  Patent  Remedy  Act, 
the Court held that the Act swept too far.  Given the identical scope of
the CRCA and Patent Remedy Act, this case could be decided differ-
ently only if the CRCA responded to  materially stronger evidence of 
unconstitutional infringement.  But as in Florida Prepaid, the legisla-
tive record contains thin evidence of infringement.  Because this record 
cannot support Congress’s choice to strip the States of their sovereign
immunity in all copyright infringement cases, the CRCA fails the “con-
gruence and proportionality” test.  Pp. 10–16. 

895 F. 3d 337, affirmed. 

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and  ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, GORSUCH,  and  KAVANAUGH,  JJ., joined,  and  in 
which THOMAS, J., joined except for the final paragraph in Part II–A and
the final paragraph in Part II–B.  THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring 
in part and concurring in the judgment.  BREYER, J., filed an opinion con-
curring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG, J., joined.