Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_new_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

at 253.  Pursuant to “a judicial consensus”  dating back  to 
Wheaton,  judges  could  not  assert  copyright  in  “whatever
work they perform in their capacity as judges.”  Banks, 128 
U. S,  at  253  (emphasis  in  original).  Rather,  “[t]he  whole 
work done by the judges constitutes the authentic exposi-
tion  and  interpretation  of  the  law,  which,  binding  every
citizen, is free for publication to all.”  Ibid. (citing Nash v. 
Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 6 N. E. 559 (1886)). 

In a companion case decided later that Term, Callaghan 
v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617 (1888), the Court identified an im-
portant  limiting  principle.  As  in  Wheaton  and  Banks, 
the Court rejected the claim that an official reporter held a 
copyright interest in the judges’ opinions.  But, resolving an 
issue not addressed in Wheaton and Banks, the Court up-
held the reporter’s copyright interest in several explanatory 
materials that the reporter had created himself: headnotes, 
syllabi,  tables  of  contents,  and  the  like.    Callaghan,  128 
U. S.,  at  645,  647.  Although  these  works  mirrored  the
judge-made materials rejected in Banks, they came from an
author who had no authority to speak with the force of law.
Because the reporter was not a judge, he was free to “ob-
tain[ ] a copyright” for the materials that were “the result 
of his [own] intellectual labor.”  128 U. S., at 647. 

These  cases  establish  a  straightforward  rule:  Because 
judges are vested with the authority to make and interpret 
the law, they cannot be the “author” of the works they pre-
pare “in the discharge of their judicial duties.”  Banks, 128 
U. S., at 253.  This rule applies both to binding works (such 
as opinions) and to non-binding works (such as headnotes 
and syllabi).  Ibid.  It does not apply, however, to works cre-
ated  by  government  officials  (or  private  parties)  who  lack
the  authority  to  make  or  interpret  the  law,  such  as  court 
reporters.  Compare ibid. with Callaghan, 128 U. S., at 647. 
The animating principle behind this rule is that no one 
can own the law.  “Every citizen is presumed to know the 
law,” and “it needs no argument to show . . . that all should