Georgia v. Public Resource.Org, Inc.
The Supreme Court ruled that Georgia cannot hold copyright in the annotations included in its official state code, because those annotations were produced by an arm of the state legislature acting in a legislative capacity — and lawmakers cannot own the legal materials they create on the public's behalf.
The decision extends a long-standing principle that no one can own the law, potentially requiring more than two dozen states and territories with similar official annotated codes to make those materials freely available to the public.
How it got here: A federal district court ruled for Georgia and issued an injunction against the nonprofit; the Eleventh Circuit reversed; Georgia asked the Supreme Court to step in and the Court agreed to hear it.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Georgia's official state code includes not just the text of each law but also annotations — summaries of court decisions, attorney general opinions, and related references — printed beneath each statute. A nonprofit called Public.Resource.Org posted the entire annotated code online for free so anyone could read it. Georgia's Code Revision Commission, a legislative body that supervised the annotations' preparation by a LexisNexis subsidiary under contract, sued for copyright infringement, claiming it owned the annotations and that the nonprofit had to stop distributing them.
The question before the Court
Can Georgia claim copyright over the non-binding annotations — summaries of court decisions and related legal materials — printed alongside each statute in its official state code?
The Court's answer
No — the annotations are not protected by copyright. The Court applied what it called the "government edicts doctrine," a rule rooted in 19th-century cases holding that officials empowered to make or interpret the law cannot be treated as copyright "authors" of whatever they produce in that official capacity. Because the Copyright Act protects only "original works of authorship," any work produced by such an official in that role falls outside copyright protection entirely.
The Court identified Georgia's Code Revision Commission — the body that supervised the annotations' drafting — as the legal author of the annotations under the Copyright Act's work-for-hire rules. It then found that the Commission functions as an arm of the Georgia Legislature: it is composed mostly of legislators, funded through legislative appropriations, staffed by the Office of Legislative Counsel, and its work is approved by the full legislature before publication. Because the Commission produces the annotations in the exercise of legislative duties, the government edicts doctrine bars it from holding copyright, regardless of whether the annotations themselves carry the force of law.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Anyone can now freely copy, post, and distribute Georgia's official annotated code — including the summaries of court decisions that explain how each law has been interpreted. More broadly, the ruling puts pressure on over two dozen other states and territories that use similar setups to reconsider whether they can keep charging for or restricting access to their official annotated codes.
What changes now
Public.Resource.Org can continue distributing the full OCGA, including its annotations, without restriction. The injunction blocking that distribution is vacated. More than two dozen other states and territories with similar official annotated codes will now face pressure to make those materials freely available, though exactly how courts will assess other states' annotation-producing bodies remains to be worked out case by case. Congress retains the power to change copyright law if it disagrees with the outcome.
What this does not decide
The ruling does not affect states' ability to copyright other expressive works they produce — such as those made by state universities, libraries, and tourism offices. It also does not set a precise test for determining when another state's annotation commission qualifies as a "legislative adjunct," leaving that question to be resolved in future litigation.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas argued that the 19th-century government edicts precedents bar copyright only in materials that carry the force of law — judicial opinions and statutes — not in non-binding annotations. He contended that the majority extended those precedents far beyond their intended scope without adequate examination of their actual rationale. He also raised practical concerns: over 25 states and territories with similar annotated codes apparently did not read the earlier cases as requiring free access, and the majority's multi-factor test for identifying a 'legislative adjunct' will be difficult to apply. He would have left any change in the law to Congress.
Dissent — Justice Ginsburg
Justice Ginsburg agreed that actual state laws and pre-enactment legislative materials like committee reports are not copyrightable. But she argued that Georgia's annotations are different: they are created after statutes are already enacted, they describe rather than prescribe (neutrally summarizing court decisions without opining on them), and they are aimed at public reference rather than at lawmaking. In her view, summarizing court decisions is not a 'legislative capacity' function, and she would have held the annotations copyrightable.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court began with the government edicts doctrine, a rule derived from three 19th-century cases. Those cases established that judges cannot be copyright 'authors' of anything they produce in their judicial capacity — including non-binding materials like headnotes and syllabi — because the whole of a judge's official work is considered part of the public's free access to the law.
- The Court confirmed that the same logic applies to legislators. Because legislators, like judges, are vested with the authority to make law, they cannot hold copyright in any work they create in their legislative capacity. This covers not just statutes but also explanatory and procedural materials like committee reports, floor statements, and proposed bills.
- Under the Copyright Act's work-for-hire rule, the Commission — not LexisNexis — is the legal 'author' of the annotations, even though LexisNexis did most of the drafting. Georgia conceded this point. The question then became whether the Commission qualifies as a legislative body for purposes of the government edicts doctrine.
- The Court found the Commission to be an arm of the Georgia Legislature based on multiple features: a majority of its members are legislators, it is funded through legislative-branch appropriations, it is staffed by the Office of Legislative Counsel, and the Georgia Supreme Court has held that its work falls 'within the sphere of legislative authority.' The legislature also formally approves the annotations before they are merged into the official code.
- Georgia argued that the doctrine should apply only to materials that carry the force of law — not to non-binding annotations. The Court rejected that framing as inconsistent with Banks v. Manchester (the 1888 case that denied copyright even to non-binding judicial headnotes and syllabi). The doctrine turns on who created the work, not on the legal weight of its contents.
- Georgia's textual arguments — that the Copyright Act lists 'annotations' as copyrightable and says nothing about state-government works — were rejected. Both points were read in light of the settled doctrine: the first because the Act protects only annotations that represent 'original works of authorship,' and the government edicts doctrine defines when a government official can be an 'author'; the second because the federal-works exclusion is far broader than the doctrine and does not suggest Congress meant to displace it for states.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Banks v. Manchester (128 U.S. 244)
Confirmed and extended to legislators: officials with law-making authority cannot hold copyright in any of their official work.
Distinguishes Callaghan v. Myers (128 U.S. 617)
Distinguished as covering private court reporters who lack authority to make law, unlike legislators or legislative bodies.