Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-877_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

16 

ALLEN v. COOPER 

Opinion of the Court 

equivalent—for  both,  that  is,  exceedingly  slight.    And  the 
scope  of  the  two  statutes  is  identical—extending  to  every 
infringement case against a State.  It follows that the bal-
ance the laws strike between constitutional wrong and stat-
utory remedy is correspondingly askew.  In this case, as in 
Florida Prepaid, the law’s “indiscriminate scope” is “out of
proportion” to any due process problem.  527 U. S., at 646– 
647; see supra, at 13.  In this case, as in that one, the statute 
aims to “provide a uniform remedy” for statutory infringe-
ment,  rather  than  to  redress  or  prevent  unconstitutional
conduct.  527 U. S., at 647; see supra, at 13.  And so in this 
case, as in that one, the law is invalid under Section 5. 

That  conclusion,  however,  need  not  prevent  Congress
from passing a valid copyright abrogation law in the future.
In doing so, Congress would presumably approach the issue 
differently  than when  it passed the CRCA.   At that time, 
the Court had not yet decided Seminole Tribe, so Congress 
probably thought that Article I could support its all-out ab-
rogation of immunity.  See supra, at 6.  And to the extent it 
relied  on  Section  5,  Congress  acted  before  this  Court  cre-
ated the “congruence and proportionality” test.  See supra,
at 11.  For that reason, Congress likely did not appreciate
the importance of linking the scope of its abrogation to the 
redress  or  prevention  of  unconstitutional  injuries—and  of 
creating a legislative record to back up that connection.  But 
going forward, Congress will know those rules.  And under 
them, if it detects violations of due process, then it may en-
act a proportionate response.  That kind of tailored statute 
can  effectively  stop  States  from  behaving  as  copyright  pi-
rates.  Even  while  respecting  constitutional  limits,  it  can
bring digital Blackbeards to justice. 

III 
Florida Prepaid all but prewrote our decision today.  That 
precedent made clear that Article I’s Intellectual Property