American Society of International Law
Annual Meeting | April 24, 2026 | Washington, D.C.
590 U.S. 255 (2020)
Georgia v.Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
Copyright Law & the Battle for open Access to Georgia's Code
Overview
Georgia's Previous Codes
Lexis Steps in: The O.C.G.A.
Government Edicts Doctrine
The SCOTUS DECISION
Background–Ga. v. Public Resource
CONCLUSION
From the beginning of Georgia's history, first as a British colony and later as a U.S. State, there have been many different incarnations of the state's statutory compilations.
Previous Codes
1799
1812-1845
1860
1867-1888
1900-1933
The O.C.G.A.
Georgia Code REvision Commission formed 1977–NEW CODE EFFECTIVE NOV. 1982
Can the law be copyrighted?
government ediCts doctrine
Gov't Edicts Doctrine originated from a series of 19th Century cases on © of case law: + Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834)+ Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888)+ Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888) *Statutes weren't specifically addressed.
Washington. 33, Senate chamber / drawn from nature (1850). Augustus Köllner. Llith. by Deroy. Digital file. Library of Congress.
timeline of Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
2013
Public.Resource.Org (PRO) nonprofit
purchases copies of the O.C.G.A. Begins to post the code online and distributes it to the public (with annotations).
Georgia sues PRO for © infringement
2015
After multiple C&Ds to PRO, Georgia files its suit in Federal district court (N.D. GA)
Dist. Ct. holds that PRO did violate GA's copyright
Ruled that Lexis/GA's annotations lack the force of law, they are not public domain material and can be copyrighted.
timeline of Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
2018
PRO appeals to 11th Circuit
arguing its posting of the Code is fair use and/or distrbituing content that is the public domain as it is part of the law
11th Cir. Ct. reverses Dist. Ct. in part
finding that because of the GA Code Commission's "intimate involvement in the creation of the annotations," this "confirms
that it is for all intents and purposes an arm of the Georgia
General Assembly." Ct. also notes that Ga. Cts. often rely on these annotations, i.e., they are part of the statutes.
2019
Georgia appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court
2020
SCOTUS issues its 5-4 decision in April
Georgia v. Public. Resource.Org, Inc. |
C.J. Roberts, Majority Opinion
5-4 Decision issued April 27, 2020;holding in PRO's favor
1. GA's Law CREATING THE O.C.G.A. MERGED THE ANNOTATIONS WITH THE LAW ITSELF
1-1-1. ENACTMENT OF CODE. The statutory portion of such codification shall be merged with annotations, captions, catchlines, history lines, editorial notes, cross-references, indices, title and chapter analyses, and other materials pursuant to the contract and shall be published by authority of the state . . . and may be cited as the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated." (Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 1).
2. O.C.G.A. annotations, due to Georgia's supervision of Lexis' editors, is by extension, a legislative act.
Lexis and its army of researchers perform the lion’s share of the work in drafting the annotations, but the Commission supervises that work and specifies what the annotations must include in exacting detail . . . the Commission’s preparation of the annotations is under Georgia law an act of 'legislative authority.' Id. at 3.
3. Legislators cannot be "authors" of the law made PER its legislative duties – Government Edicts Doctrine.
Because legislators, like judges, have the authority to make law, it follows that they, too, cannot be 'authors.' . . . [C]opyright does not vest in works that are (1) created by judges and legislators (2) in the course of their judicial and legislative duties. Id. at 9.
4. The Court notes concerns over allowing legislators to control access to EVEN NON-BINDING AUTHORITY
If everything short of statutes and opinions were copyrightable, then States would be free to offer a whole range of premium legal works for those who can afford the extra benefit. A State could monetize its entire suite of legislative history . . .If Georgia were correct, then . . . all of [a state's] judges’ and legislators’ non-binding legal works would be copyrighted . . . The less bold among us would have to think twice before using official legal works that illuminate the law we are all presumed to know and understand. Id. at 17-18.
In a democracy, the rule of law requires that the law be promulgated. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.When states and their vendors collude to improperly assert copyright, invoke terms of use, and aggressively attempt to build walls around access to the raw materials of our democracy, we all suffer.
- Carl MalamudPresident, Public.Resource.Org
Decl. of Carl Malamud in Support of Public.Resource.Org, at 16, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., No. 18-1150 (U.S., Oct. 18, 2021).
Attorneys may use either the Official
Code of Georgia Annotated as published by Michie or the
defendants' new Georgia Code Annotated . . . However, as pointed out above, attorneys who
cite the defendants' publication do so at their peril; in any
situation wherein the defendants' compilation differs in any
way from statutory provisions as published by Michie, it is
the Michie code which is controlling.
Georgia v.Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
Builder
Created on April 14, 2026
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Modern Zen Presentation
View
Newspaper Presentation
View
Audio tutorial
View
Pechakucha Presentation
View
Desktop Workspace
View
Decades Presentation
View
Psychology Presentation
Explore all templates
Transcript
American Society of International Law Annual Meeting | April 24, 2026 | Washington, D.C.
590 U.S. 255 (2020)
Georgia v.Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
Copyright Law & the Battle for open Access to Georgia's Code
Overview
Georgia's Previous Codes
Lexis Steps in: The O.C.G.A.
Government Edicts Doctrine
The SCOTUS DECISION
Background–Ga. v. Public Resource
CONCLUSION
From the beginning of Georgia's history, first as a British colony and later as a U.S. State, there have been many different incarnations of the state's statutory compilations.
Previous Codes
1799
1812-1845
1860
1867-1888
1900-1933
The O.C.G.A.
Georgia Code REvision Commission formed 1977–NEW CODE EFFECTIVE NOV. 1982
Can the law be copyrighted?
government ediCts doctrine
Gov't Edicts Doctrine originated from a series of 19th Century cases on © of case law: + Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834)+ Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888)+ Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888) *Statutes weren't specifically addressed.
Washington. 33, Senate chamber / drawn from nature (1850). Augustus Köllner. Llith. by Deroy. Digital file. Library of Congress.
timeline of Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
2013
Public.Resource.Org (PRO) nonprofit
purchases copies of the O.C.G.A. Begins to post the code online and distributes it to the public (with annotations).
Georgia sues PRO for © infringement
2015
After multiple C&Ds to PRO, Georgia files its suit in Federal district court (N.D. GA)
Dist. Ct. holds that PRO did violate GA's copyright
Ruled that Lexis/GA's annotations lack the force of law, they are not public domain material and can be copyrighted.
timeline of Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
2018
PRO appeals to 11th Circuit
arguing its posting of the Code is fair use and/or distrbituing content that is the public domain as it is part of the law
11th Cir. Ct. reverses Dist. Ct. in part
finding that because of the GA Code Commission's "intimate involvement in the creation of the annotations," this "confirms that it is for all intents and purposes an arm of the Georgia General Assembly." Ct. also notes that Ga. Cts. often rely on these annotations, i.e., they are part of the statutes.
2019
Georgia appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court
2020
SCOTUS issues its 5-4 decision in April
Georgia v. Public. Resource.Org, Inc. |
C.J. Roberts, Majority Opinion
5-4 Decision issued April 27, 2020;holding in PRO's favor
1. GA's Law CREATING THE O.C.G.A. MERGED THE ANNOTATIONS WITH THE LAW ITSELF
1-1-1. ENACTMENT OF CODE. The statutory portion of such codification shall be merged with annotations, captions, catchlines, history lines, editorial notes, cross-references, indices, title and chapter analyses, and other materials pursuant to the contract and shall be published by authority of the state . . . and may be cited as the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated." (Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 1).
2. O.C.G.A. annotations, due to Georgia's supervision of Lexis' editors, is by extension, a legislative act.
Lexis and its army of researchers perform the lion’s share of the work in drafting the annotations, but the Commission supervises that work and specifies what the annotations must include in exacting detail . . . the Commission’s preparation of the annotations is under Georgia law an act of 'legislative authority.' Id. at 3.
3. Legislators cannot be "authors" of the law made PER its legislative duties – Government Edicts Doctrine.
Because legislators, like judges, have the authority to make law, it follows that they, too, cannot be 'authors.' . . . [C]opyright does not vest in works that are (1) created by judges and legislators (2) in the course of their judicial and legislative duties. Id. at 9.
4. The Court notes concerns over allowing legislators to control access to EVEN NON-BINDING AUTHORITY
If everything short of statutes and opinions were copyrightable, then States would be free to offer a whole range of premium legal works for those who can afford the extra benefit. A State could monetize its entire suite of legislative history . . .If Georgia were correct, then . . . all of [a state's] judges’ and legislators’ non-binding legal works would be copyrighted . . . The less bold among us would have to think twice before using official legal works that illuminate the law we are all presumed to know and understand. Id. at 17-18.
In a democracy, the rule of law requires that the law be promulgated. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.When states and their vendors collude to improperly assert copyright, invoke terms of use, and aggressively attempt to build walls around access to the raw materials of our democracy, we all suffer.
- Carl MalamudPresident, Public.Resource.Org
Decl. of Carl Malamud in Support of Public.Resource.Org, at 16, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., No. 18-1150 (U.S., Oct. 18, 2021).
Attorneys may use either the Official Code of Georgia Annotated as published by Michie or the defendants' new Georgia Code Annotated . . . However, as pointed out above, attorneys who cite the defendants' publication do so at their peril; in any situation wherein the defendants' compilation differs in any way from statutory provisions as published by Michie, it is the Michie code which is controlling.