Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

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

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

No. 18–1150.  Argued December 2, 2019—Decided April 27, 2020 

The Copyright Act grants monopoly protection for “original works of au-
thorship.”  17 U. S. C. §102(a).  Under the government edicts doctrine, 
officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the au-
thors of the works they create in the course of their official duties.

The State of Georgia has one official code—the Official Code of Geor-
gia Annotated (OCGA).  That Code includes the text of every Georgia 
statute currently in force, as well as a set of non-binding annotations 
that appear beneath each statutory provision.  The annotations typi-
cally include summaries of judicial opinions construing each provision,
summaries of pertinent opinions of the state attorney general, and a 
list of related law review articles and other reference materials.  The 
OCGA is assembled by the Code Revision Commission, a state entity
composed mostly of legislators, funded through legislative branch ap-
propriations, and staffed by the Office of Legislative Counsel.   

The annotations in the current OCGA were produced by Matthew 
Bender & Co., Inc., a division of the LexisNexis Group, pursuant to a 
work-for-hire agreement with the Commission.  Under the agreement, 
Lexis drafts the annotations under the supervision of the Commission, 
which specifies what the annotations must include in exacting detail. 
The agreement also states that any copyright in the OCGA vests in the 
State of Georgia, acting through the Commission.   
  Respondent Public.Resource.Org (PRO), a nonprofit dedicated to fa-
cilitating  public  access  to  government  records  and  legal  materials,
posted  the  OCGA  online  and  distributed  copies  to  various  organiza-
tions and Georgia officials.  After sending PRO several cease-and-de-
sist letters, the Commission sued PRO for infringing its copyright in
the  OCGA  annotations.  PRO  counterclaimed,  seeking  a  declaratory
judgment that the entire OCGA, including the annotations, fell in the