Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 39

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

1 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–1150 
_________________ 

GEORGIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 
PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

[April 27, 2020] 

JUSTICE  GINSBURG,  with  whom  JUSTICE  BREYER  joins,

dissenting. 

Beyond doubt, state laws are not copyrightable.  Nor are 
other materials created by state legislators in the course of 
performing  their  lawmaking  responsibilities,  e.g.,  legisla-
tive  committee  reports,  floor  statements,  unenacted  bills. 
Ante, at 8–9.  Not all that legislators do, however, is ineligi-
ble for copyright protection; the government edicts doctrine 
shields only “works that are (1) created by judges and leg-
islators (2) in the course of their judicial and legislative du-
ties.”  Ante, at 9 (emphasis added).  The core question this 
case presents, as I see it: Are the annotations in the Official
Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) done in a legislative ca-
pacity?  The answer, I am persuaded, should be no. 

To  explain  why,  I  proceed  from  common  ground.    All 
agree that headnotes and syllabi for judicial opinions—both 
a kind of annotation—are copyrightable when created by a 
reporter  of  decisions,  Callaghan  v.  Myers,  128  U. S.  617, 
645–650 (1888), but are not copyrightable when created by
judges,  Banks  v.  Manchester,  128  U. S.  244,  253  (1888). 
That is so because “[t]he whole work done by . . . judges,” 
ibid., including dissenting and concurring opinions, ranks
as work performed in their judicial capacity.  Judges do not
outsource their writings to “arm[s]” or “adjunct[s],” cf. ante, 
at  9,  11,  to  be  composed  in  their  stead.  Accordingly,  the