Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-877_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 24

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

1 

BREYER, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–877 
_________________ 

FREDERICK L. ALLEN, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ROY 
A. COOPER, III, GOVERNOR OF NORTH 
CAROLINA, ET AL. 

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

[March 23, 2020]

 JUSTICE  BREYER,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GINSBURG  joins,

concurring in the judgment. 

The  Constitution  gives  Congress  certain  enumerated 
powers.  One of them is set forth in the Intellectual Property
Clause: Congress may “promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries.”  Art. I, §8, cl. 8.  “And the monopoly rights 
so given,” the Court acknowledges, operate against “States 
no less than private parties.”  Ante, at 6.  States, in other 
words,  have  “a  specific  duty”  not  to  infringe  that  “is  as-
signed by law” and upon which “individual rights depend.” 
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 166 (1803).  One might 
therefore expect that someone injured by a State’s violation
of  that  duty  could  “resort  to  the  laws  of  his  country  for  a 
remedy,”  ibid.,  especially  where,  as  here,  Congress  has
sought to provide one.  Or more concretely, one might think 
that Walt Disney Pictures could sue a State (or anyone else) 
for  hosting  an  unlicensed  screening  of  the  studio’s  2003 
blockbuster film, Pirates of the Caribbean (or any one of its
many sequels).

Yet  the  Court  holds  otherwise.    In  its  view,  Congress’ 
power under the Intellectual Property Clause cannot sup-