Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-915_pol1.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

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

3 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

supporting Unicolors, agrees.  See Brief for United States 
as Amicus Curiae 25, n. 5.  And, obviously, so does H&M.  
See Brief for Respondent 1.  Thus, no party or amicus before 
us supports the Eleventh Circuit’s position.  Without “ad-
versary presentation” on the actual question presented, we 
should dismiss.  Sheehan, 575 U. S., at 610. 
  Second, as in Yee, Unicolors’ new merits-stage arguments 
present  novel  legal  questions.    Unicolors  claims  that 
“knowledge”  in  §411(b)(1)(A)  is  satisfied  only  by  actual 
knowledge (i.e., an applicant subjectively knew of an inac-
curacy) rather than actual or constructive knowledge (i.e., 
an applicant should have known of an inaccuracy).  It fur-
ther  contends  that  a  copyright  applicant  must  actually 
know  that  it  is  misapplying  a  legal  standard  rather  than 
simply misstating the facts. 
  It  is  undisputed  that  Unicolors  raised  neither  point  be-
low.  It is also undisputed that there is no circuit split on 
either of Unicolors’ new arguments.  And it is clear that the 
Court of Appeals did not meaningfully consider these ques-
tions.    It  said  nothing  about  actual  versus  constructive 
knowledge, see 959 F. 3d, at 1200, and it merely implied, in 
a  cursory  sentence,  that  §411(b)(1)(A)  requires  knowledge 
of facts and not law, see ante, at 9 (citing 959 F. 3d, at 1200).  
Other  than  this  halfway  relevant  and  completely  unrea-
soned statement, the Court cites no other opinion from any 
court that interprets §411(b)(1)(A).  Thus, we are the “first 
court in the Nation” to decide the important questions that 
Unicolors  belatedly  presents.    Yee,  503  U. S.,  at  538.    I 
would decline the invitation to take that imprudent step. 
  The Court disputes none of this.  Instead, it reasons that 
Unicolors’  new  arguments  are  “ ‘fairly  included’ ”  in  the 
question  presented  because,  even  though  Unicolors  origi-
nally proposed a fraud standard, it now argues for at least 
an element of that standard: actual knowledge of a misrep-
resentation.  Ante, at 9 (quoting this Court’s Rule 14.1(a)).
  The  Court  misapplies  Rule  14.1(a).    An  argument  is