Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 21

18 

GEORGIA v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

rights that can last over a century.  17 U. S. C. §§102, 106, 
302.  If Georgia were correct, then unless a State took the 
affirmative step of transferring its copyrights to the public 
domain, all of its judges’ and legislators’ non-binding legal 
works would be copyrighted.  And citizens, attorneys, non-
profits, and private research companies would have to cease 
all copying, distribution, and display of those works or risk 
severe  and  potentially  criminal  penalties.    §§501–506. 
Some affected parties might be willing to roll the dice with 
a potential fair use defense.  But that defense, designed to 
accommodate  First  Amendment  concerns,  is  notoriously
fact sensitive and often cannot be resolved without a trial. 
Cf. Harper  & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 
471 U. S. 539, 552, 560–561 (1985).  The less bold among us
would have to think twice before using official legal works 
that illuminate the law we are all presumed to know and 
understand. 

Thankfully,  there  is  a  clear  path  forward  that  avoids 
these concerns—the one we are already on.  Instead of ex-
amining whether given material carries “the force of law,”
we ask only whether the author of the work is a judge or a 
legislator.  If so, then whatever work that judge or legislator 
produces in the course of his judicial or legislative duties is
not  copyrightable.  That  is  the  framework  our  precedents 
long  ago  established,  and  we  adhere  to  those  precedents 
today. 

* 
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the

* 

* 

Eleventh Circuit. 

It is so ordered.