Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

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

5 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

content to accept these precedents reflexively, without ex-
amining the origin or validity of the rule they announced.
For  the  majority,  it  is  enough  that  the  precedents  estab-
lished a rule that “seemed too obvious to adorn with further 
explanation.”  Ante, at 6.  But the contours of the rule were 
far from clear, and to understand the scope of the doctrine,
we must explore its underlying rationale.

In  my  view,  the  majority’s  uncritical  extrapolation  of 
precedent is inconsistent with the judicial role.  An unwill-
ingness  to  examine  the  root  of  a  precedent  has  led  to  the
sprouting of many noxious weeds that distort the meaning
of the Constitution and statutes alike.  Although we have
not been asked to revisit these precedents, it behooves us to
explore  the  origin  of  and  justification  for  them,  especially
when we are asked to apply their rule for the first time in 
over 130 years.

The  Court’s  precedents  suggest  three  possible  grounds 
supporting their conclusion.  In Banks, the Court referred 
to the meaning of the term “author” in copyright law.  While 
the Court did not develop this argument, it is conceivable
that the contemporaneous public meaning of the term “au-
thor”  was  narrower  in  the  copyright  context  than  in ordi-
nary  speech.  At  the  time  this  Court  decided  Banks,  the 
Copyright Act provided protection for books, maps, prints,
engravings,  musical  and  dramatic  compositions,  photo-
graphs, and works of art.1  Judicial opinions differ markedly 
from these works.  Books, for instance, express the thoughts 
of their authors.  They typically have no power beyond the 
ability of their words to influence readers, and they usually
are published at private expense.  Judicial opinions, on the
other  hand,  do  not  simply  express  the  thoughts  of  the 
judges who write or endorse them.  Instead, they elaborate 

—————— 

1 See 1 Stat. 124; 2 Stat. 171; ch. 16, 4 Stat. 436; 11 Stat. 138–139; 13 

Stat. 540; 16 Stat. 212.