## Facts

- Georgia designates the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) as its single official code.
- The OCGA includes (1) the statutory text in force and (2) nonbinding annotations (e.g., case summaries, attorney general opinion summaries, and references to secondary sources).
- The Georgia Code Revision Commission, a state entity largely composed of legislators and supported by legislative staff and funding, oversees preparation of the OCGA.
- A private publisher drafted annotations under a work-for-hire arrangement controlled by the Commission, with Georgia claiming copyright in the OCGA.
- Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (PRO) purchased the printed OCGA, digitized it, and distributed it online and to institutions without charge.
- Georgia sent cease-and-desist letters and sued PRO for copyright infringement.

## Issues

1. Whether the government edicts doctrine renders uncopyrightable official annotations in an “official” state code, even if the annotations lack the force of law.
2. Whether annotations prepared under legislative supervision by an entity functioning as an arm of the legislature are “authored” by the State for purposes of the government edicts doctrine.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for PRO in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts.
- The Court held that the OCGA annotations are ineligible for copyright protection under the government edicts doctrine.
- The Court reasoned that the dispositive inquiry is authorship: works created by legislators (or their legislative arms) in the course of legislative duties cannot be copyrighted.
- The Court concluded the Code Revision Commission acted as an arm of the legislature and produced the annotations as part of legislative functions tied to publishing the official code.
- Because the annotations were uncopyrightable, the Court did not reach alternative defenses such as fair use.

## Legal Principles

- Under the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to make or interpret law cannot be the “authors” (for copyright purposes) of works created in the course of their official duties.
- The doctrine turns on the identity and capacity of the author (judge, legislator, or comparable executive official), not solely on whether the work itself carries legal force.
- Official legislative annotations created by a legislative body (or its functional equivalent) as part of producing an official code fall within the doctrine, even if labeled nonbinding.
- The holding is limited to works created by judges or legislators in their official duties and does not bar copyright in privately authored commentary or commercial research products not attributable to lawmaking officials.

## Conclusion

The Court held that annotations published as part of Georgia’s official annotated code were authored by an arm of the legislature in the course of legislative duties and therefore must remain in the public domain under the government edicts doctrine.


Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 590 U.S. 255 (2020)