Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-877_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 6

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

provides that a State “shall not be immune, under the Elev-
enth  Amendment  [or]  any  other  doctrine  of  sovereign  im-
munity, from suit in Federal court” for copyright infringe-
ment.  17  U. S. C.  §511(a).    And  the  Act  specifies  that  in
such a suit a State will be liable, and subject to remedies, 
“in the same manner and to the same extent as” a private 
party.  §501(a); see §511(b).1  That meant, Allen contended, 
that his suit against North Carolina could go forward.

The District Court agreed.  Quoting the CRCA’s text, the
court first found that “Congress has stated clearly its intent 
to  abrogate  sovereign  immunity  for  copyright  claims 
against a state.”  244  F. Supp. 3d 525, 533 (EDNC 2017).
And that abrogation, the court next held, had a proper con-
stitutional basis.  Florida Prepaid and other precedent, the
District  Court  acknowledged,  precluded  Congress  from 
using  its  Article  I  powers—including  its  authority  over
copyrights—to  take  away  a  State’s  sovereign  immunity.
See 244 F. Supp. 3d, at 534.  But in the court’s view, Florida 
Prepaid left open an alternative route to abrogation.  Given 
the States’ “pattern” of “abus[ive]” copyright infringement,
the court held, Congress could accomplish its object under
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  244 F. Supp. 3d, 
at 535. 

On  interlocutory  appeal,  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the 
Fourth Circuit reversed.  It read Florida Prepaid to prevent
recourse to Section 5 no less than to Article I.  A Section 5 
abrogation, the Fourth Circuit explained, must be “congru-
ent and proportional” to the Fourteenth Amendment injury 
—————— 

1 The CRCA served as the model for the Patent and Plant Variety Pro-
tection  Clarification  Act  (Patent  Remedy  Act),  passed  two  years  later 
(and repudiated by this Court in Florida Prepaid, see supra, at 1).  Using 
the same language, the latter statute provided that a State “shall not be
immune,  under  the  [E]leventh  [A]mendment  [or]  any  other  doctrine  of 
sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court” for patent infringement. 
§2, 106 Stat. 4230.  And so too, the statute specified that in such a suit, 
a State will be liable, and subject to remedies, “in the same manner and
to the same extent as” a private party.  Ibid.