Allen v. Cooper
Headline: Copyright suits against states are blocked as the Court strikes down the 1990 federal law, preventing individuals from suing nonconsenting states for online posting and other copyright uses without new, tailored legislation.
Holding:
- Blocks federal copyright lawsuits against nonconsenting states under the CRCA.
- Leaves states generally protected from federal copyright damage suits absent new law.
- Signals Congress must draft narrower statutes tied to due-process violations if it wants to allow such suits.
Summary
Background
A marine salvage company, Intersal, hired a local videographer, Frederick Allen, to record the recovery of the pirate ship Queen Anne’s Revenge. Allen registered copyrights in his photos and videos. North Carolina, which controls the wreck, posted some of Allen’s works online. After an earlier settlement, Allen sued the State for copyright infringement seeking money damages. North Carolina claimed sovereign immunity (the general rule that states cannot be sued in federal court without consent). Congress had passed the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) to allow such suits, and a District Court upheld Allen’s claim under that law; the Fourth Circuit reversed.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether Congress could use either its Article I power over copyrights or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment (which lets Congress enforce due-process limits on states) to strip states of immunity. Relying on prior precedent (especially Florida Prepaid), the Court held Article I cannot serve that purpose, and it rejected a Section 5 justification because the legislative record did not show a pattern of intentional, constitutionally wrongful state infringements. The Copyright Office’s report found only a handful of possible state infringements, many described as innocent mistakes, and provided no evidence states lacked adequate remedies. Given that weak record and the CRCA’s broad, unlimited scope, the law failed the required “congruence and proportionality” test and therefore is invalid.
Real world impact
As a result, people cannot use the CRCA to bring federal damages suits against nonconsenting states for copyright posting or similar claims. States remain largely protected from federal copyright damage suits unless Congress enacts a new, more narrowly tailored statute tied to demonstrated due-process violations. The Court explicitly left open that a future, better-supported law might be valid.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices Thomas and Breyer wrote separate opinions. Thomas agreed with the judgment but criticized the Court’s stare decisis discussion and raised a question about whether copyrights are “property” under the original meaning of the Due Process Clause. Breyer (joined by Ginsburg) agreed the CRCA fails but said earlier precedents restricting Congress’s Article I power are wrong, even while he felt bound to follow them.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?