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

ALLEN ET AL. v. COOPER, GOVERNOR OF NORTH 
CAROLINA, ET AL. 

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

No. 18–877.  Argued November 5, 2019—Decided March 23, 2020 

In 1996, a marine salvage company named Intersal, Inc., discovered the
shipwreck of the Queen Anne’s Revenge off the North Carolina coast. 
North Carolina, the shipwreck’s legal owner, contracted with Intersal 
to conduct recovery operations.  Intersal, in turn, hired videographer 
Frederick  Allen  to  document  the  efforts.  Allen  recorded  videos  and 
took  photos  of  the  recovery  for  more  than  a  decade.    He  registered
copyrights in all of his works.  When North Carolina published some
of Allen’s videos and photos online, Allen sued for copyright infringe-
ment.  North Carolina moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground of 
state sovereign immunity.  Allen countered that the Copyright Remedy
Clarification  Act  of  1990  (CRCA)  removed  the  States’  sovereign  im-
munity  in  copyright  infringement  cases.    The  District  Court  agreed 
with Allen, finding in the CRCA’s text a clear congressional intent to 
abrogate state sovereign immunity and a proper constitutional basis 
for  that  abrogation.    The  court  acknowledged  that  Florida  Prepaid 
Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U. S. 627, 
precluded Congress from using its Article I powers—including its au-
thority over copyrights—to deprive States of sovereign immunity.  But 
the court held that Congress could accomplish its objective under Sec-
tion  5  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.    The  Fourth  Circuit  reversed, 
reading Florida Prepaid to prevent recourse to both Article I and Sec-
tion 5. 

Held: Congress lacked authority to abrogate the States’ immunity from 

copyright infringement suits in the CRCA.  Pp. 4–17.

(a) In general, a federal court may not hear a suit brought by any 
person against a nonconsenting State.  But such suits are permitted if 
Congress  has  enacted  “unequivocal  statutory  language”  abrogating