`
`No. 18-1150
`================================================================
`
`In The
`Supreme Court of the United States
`---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
`
`STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.,
`Respondent.
`
`---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
`
`On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
`To The United States Court Of Appeals
`For The Eleventh Circuit
`
`---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
`
`BRIEF OF THE STATES OF ARKANSAS,
`ALABAMA, IDAHO, KANSAS, MISSISSIPPI, SOUTH
`CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, AND TENNESSEE
`AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
`
`---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
`
`LESLIE RUTLEDGE
` Attorney General
`NICHOLAS J. BRONNI
` Solicitor General
` Counsel of Record
`DYLAN JACOBS
` Assistant Solicitor General
`OFFICE OF THE ARKANSAS
` ATTORNEY GENERAL
`323 Center Street
`Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
`(501) 682-6302
`nicholas.bronni@arkansasag.gov
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`[Additional Counsel Listed On Signature Page]
`
`================================================================
`COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964
`WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`QUESTION PRESENTED
`
`
` Whether the government edicts doctrine extends
`to—and thus renders uncopyrightable—works that
`lack the force of law, such as the annotations in the
`Official Code of Georgia Annotated.
`
`
`
`

`

`ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`QUESTION PRESENTED...................................
`i
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .........................
`1
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..............................
`2
`ARGUMENT ........................................................
`3
`
`I. This case presents an issue of profound
`importance to States with copyrighted of-
`ficial annotated codes ................................
`A. The decision below would likely inval-
`idate every copyright in an official an-
`notated state code ................................
`B. Whether States can copyright the an-
`notations in their official codes is an
`issue of profound importance .............. 10
` II. The decision below is wrong ...................... 14
`CONCLUSION ..................................................... 20
`
`
`3
`
`5
`
`

`

`iii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`Am. Soc’y for Testing & Materials v. Public.
`Resource.Org, Inc., 896 F.3d 437 (D.C. Cir.
`2018) ........................................................................ 14
`Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888) ... 14, 15, 18, 19
`Bldg. Officials & Code Adm’rs v. Code Tech., Inc.,
`628 F.2d 730 (1st Cir. 1980) .................................... 15
`Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617 (1888) .... 14, 17, 18, 19
`Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F. Supp. 105 (N.D. Cal.
`1970) ........................................................................ 12
`Hall v. City of Bryant, 379 S.W.3d 727 (Ark. Ct.
`App. 2010) ................................................................ 16
`Hixson v. Burson, 43 N.E. 1000 (Ohio 1896) .............. 18
`Jacobs v. State, 243 S.W. 952 (Ark. 1922) ................... 16
`Pioneer Tr. Co. v. Stich, 73 N.E. 520 (Ohio 1905) ....... 18
`United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,
`200 U.S. 321 (1906) ................................................. 18
`United States v. Stitt, 139 S. Ct. 399 (2018) ............... 18
`Veeck v. So. Bldg. Code Congress Int’l, Inc., 293
`F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc) ........................... 15
`Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) ......................... 17
`
`STATUTES
`17 U.S.C. 102(a) ................................................. 3, 15, 19
`2015 Ga. Laws 9, sec. 54 ............................................... 9
`
`

`

`iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`2017 Ga. Laws 275 ........................................................ 9
`Ala. Code 1-1-14 .......................................................... 10
`Ala. Code 29-5A-1(a) ..................................................... 6
`Ala. Code 29-5A-22 ....................................................... 6
`Ala. Code 29-6-1(a) ....................................................... 6
`Alaska Stat. 01.05.006 ................................................ 10
`Alaska Stat. 24.20.020 .................................................. 6
`Alaska Stat. 24.20.070(b) ............................................. 6
`Ark. Code Ann. 1-2-102............................................... 10
`Ark. Code Ann. 1-2-115(c) ........................................... 16
`Ark. Code Ann. 1-2-301(b) ............................................ 6
`Ark. Code Ann. 1-2-303(a)(1) ........................................ 6
`Ark. Code Ann. 2-16-204............................................. 16
`Ark. Code Ann. 14-268-105 ......................................... 16
`Colo. Rev. Stat. 2-5-101(3)........................................... 10
`Colo. Rev. Stat. 2-5-101-102 .......................................... 6
`Colo. Rev. Stat. 2-5-102(1)(b) ...................................... 10
`Del. Code Ann. tit. 1, 101(a) ....................................... 10
`Del. Code Ann. tit. 1, 210(a) ....................................... 10
`Del. Code Ann. tit. 1, 210(b) ......................................... 6
`Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, 1101 .......................................... 6
`Ga. Code Ann. 1-1-1 ...................................................... 9
`Ga. Code Ann. 1-1-7 .................................................... 16
`
`

`

`v
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`Kan. Stat. Ann. 46-1201(a) ........................................... 6
`Kan. Stat. Ann. 46-1211(a) ........................................... 6
`Kan. Stat. Ann. 77-133 ................................................. 6
`Kan. Stat. Ann. 77-133(h) ........................................... 10
`Kan. Stat. Ann. 77-137 ............................................... 10
`Minn. Stat. 3.303 .......................................................... 6
`Minn. Stat. 3C.01 .......................................................... 6
`Minn. Stat. 3C.08 .......................................................... 6
`Miss. Code Ann. 1-1-7 ................................................. 10
`Miss. Code Ann. 1-1-8(1) ............................................. 10
`Miss. Code Ann. 1-1-103 ............................................... 7
`Miss. Code Ann. 1-1-107 ............................................... 6
`Neb. Rev. Stat. 49.702 ................................................... 7
`Neb. Rev. Stat. 49-765 ................................................. 10
`Neb. Rev. Stat. 49-767 ................................................. 10
`Neb. Rev. Stat. 50-401.01(1)-(2) .................................... 7
`N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 17-A:1 .......................................... 7
`N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 17-A:2 .......................................... 7
`N.M. Stat. Ann. 12-1-2 .................................................. 7
`N.M. Stat. Ann. 12-1-3 ............................................ 7, 10
`N.M. Stat. Ann. 12-1-7 ................................................ 10
`N.C. Gen. Stat. 164-10 .................................................. 7
`
`
`

`

`vi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 2, 223 ............................................. 7
`P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 2, 226 ........................................... 10
`R.I. Gen. Laws 22-11-3.2 .............................................. 7
`R.I. Gen. Laws 43-4-18 ................................................. 7
`S.C. Code Ann. 2-7-45 ................................................. 10
`S.C. Code Ann. 2-11-10 ................................................. 7
`S.C. Code Ann. 2-13-10 ................................................. 7
`S.C. Code Ann. 2-13-60 ................................................. 7
`S.C. Code Ann. 2-13-60(3) ........................................... 10
`S.D. Codified Laws 2-16-3 ............................................. 7
`S.D. Codified Laws 2-16-6 ............................................. 7
`Tenn. Code Ann. 1-1-101 .............................................. 7
`Tenn. Code Ann. 1-1-105 .............................................. 7
`Tenn. Code Ann. 1-1-105(a) ........................................ 10
`Tenn. Code Ann. 1-1-111(b) ........................................ 10
`Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 1, 51 ................................................ 10
`Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, 402 ................................................ 7
`Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, 421 ................................................ 7
`Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, 422 ................................................ 7
`Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, 422(b).......................................... 10
`Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, 423 ................................................ 7
`Va. Code Ann. 30-145 .................................................... 7
`Va. Code Ann. 30-146 .................................................... 7
`
`

`

`vii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`V.I. Code Ann. tit. 2, 209 ............................................... 7
`V.I. Code Ann. tit. 2, 210 ............................................... 7
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Am. Ass’n of Law Libraries Special Interest
`Section, A Study of Attorneys’ Legal Research
`Practices and Opinions of New Associates’
`Research Skills (2013), available at https://
`tinyurl.com/y6xhrcg3 ........................................ 11, 12
`Elizabeth Holland, Will You Have to Pay for the
`O.C.G.A.?: Copyrighting the Official Code of
`Georgia Annotated, 26 J. Intell. Prop. L. 99
`(2019) ....................................................................... 13
`Patrick Meyer, Law Firm Legal Research Re-
`quirements and the Legal Academy Beyond
`Carnegie, 35 Whittier L. Rev. 419 (2014) ................ 12
`Thomson Reuters, West’s Florida Statutes Anno-
`tated, available at https://tinyurl.com/y2os7ryo ........ 14
`
`

`

`
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1
`Amici are the States of Arkansas, Alabama, Idaho,
`
`Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota,
`and Tennessee. Amici have copyrighted annotations in
`their official codes.
`
`The decision below threatens those copyrights. In
`
`it, the Eleventh Circuit held that the annotations in
`Georgia’s official code are not copyrightable. To justify
`that holding, the court relied on a number of factors
`concerning those annotations’ preparation and their
`status under Georgia law. Those factors are typical of
`the production of official annotated codes and their sta-
`tus under other States’ laws. As a result, the Eleventh
`Circuit’s reasoning would likely invalidate a copyright
`asserted by nearly any State (or by a State’s assignee)
`in the annotations to an official state code.
`
`By invalidating those copyrights, the reasoning of
`
`the decision below, if adopted by other circuits, would
`threaten the continued production of official annotated
`state codes. Official annotated codes are generally pre-
`pared by third-party annotators who recoup the costs
`of preparing those codes by selling the official anno-
`tated codes and pocketing the revenues of those sales.
`Without copyright protection, the annotations would
`become freely available, and the annotators’ sales
`would dry up. The annotators would likely begin de-
`manding payment for annotating state codes. Were
`
`
`1 Counsel of record for all parties have received notice of
`
`amici’s intent to file this brief.
`
`

`

`2
`
`that to occur, States would either incur substantial
`costs in continuing to produce annotated codes, or
`cease producing their official annotated codes al-
`together—depriving their citizens of a valuable re-
`search tool to understand the law.
`
`---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The decision below holds that under certain cir-
`
`cumstances, a State cannot copyright the annotations
`of judicial decisions and state attorney general opin-
`ions in its official annotated code. That decision might
`initially appear factbound, but in reality it at least
`threatens, and would likely invalidate, copyrights held
`in the official annotated codes of twenty-one other
`States, two territories, and the District of Columbia.
`
` Whether those copyrights are valid is an im-
`portant question worthy of this Court’s review. States
`use copyright protections to give third parties incen-
`tives to annotate their official codes. Under the typical
`arrangement, the company that produces the annota-
`tions in an official annotated code sells that code and
`keeps the revenues from its sale. Without copyright
`protections in the annotations, States would be forced
`to choose between paying these third parties to anno-
`tate their codes or giving up their annotated codes al-
`together.
`
`The loss of annotated codes would be costly. Anno-
`
`tations are not themselves the law, nor authoritative
`guidance on it. But despite the advent of electronic
`
`

`

`3
`
`legal research, lawyers and nonlawyers alike continue
`to look to the annotations in annotated codes as a
`starting point in researching how state law has been
`interpreted. Thus, the decision below ultimately threat-
`ens to deprive many States’ citizens of a valuable tool
`for determining what the law is.
`
`In addition to the importance of the issues reached
`
`in the decision below, its resolution of these issues is
`wrong. It is no doubt true that there can be no copy-
`right in the law itself because copyright only subsists
`in “original works of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. 102(a). The
`ultimate authors of the law are the public at large, ra-
`ther than the legislature or judiciary. But the same is
`not true of nonbinding annotations, which had never
`been held uncopyrightable by any court until the deci-
`sion below. The annotation of a case is not an exercise
`of popular sovereignty, but a comment on it, and the
`original work of authorship of the company or body
`that wrote it.
`
`---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
`
`ARGUMENT
`I. This case presents an issue of profound im-
`portance to States with copyrighted offi-
`cial annotated codes.
`The decision below held that annotations in a
`
`State’s official annotated code are not copyrightable at
`least where they are part of an official code, App. 38a-
`42a; and their preparation is supervised by officials
`who exercise sovereign power, App. 37a-38a, and was
`
`

`

`4
`
`authorized by legislation that went through bicamer-
`alism and presentment, App. 47a-51a. The facts on
`which this holding rests are hardly Georgia-specific.
`Rather, the characteristics of the annotations in Geor-
`gia’s code that led the Eleventh Circuit to deem them
`uncopyrightable are largely present in the case of
`every copyrighted annotated state code.
`
`The annotations in the official annotated codes of
`
`twenty-two States (including Georgia), two territories,
`and the District of Columbia are copyrighted.2 The de-
`cision below threatens and would likely invalidate the
`copyrights in all of them. If that were to occur, either
`States’ cost of making official annotated codes would
`substantially increase, or those codes would disappear
`altogether.
`
`
`
`
`2 See Registration Nos. TX0008663448 (Sept. 17, 2018) (Ala-
`
`bama), TX0008570445 (Mar. 22, 2018) (Alaska), TX0008590841
`(June 11, 2018) (Arkansas), TX0008381033 (Feb. 16, 2017) (Colo-
`rado), TX0008551825 (Jan. 16, 2018) (Delaware), TX0008566647
`(Apr. 23, 2018) (District of Columbia), TX0008588533 (Mar. 13, 2018)
`(Idaho), TX0008566022 (Feb. 1, 2018) (Kansas), TX0008269291
`(Oct. 5, 2015) (Minnesota), TX0008588394 (Apr. 3, 2018) (Missis-
`sippi), TX0008489689 (Aug. 1, 2016) (Nebraska), TX0008532691
`(Aug. 28, 2017) (New Hampshire), TX0008600436 (Dec. 4, 2017)
`(New Mexico), TX0008533641 (Dec. 19, 2017) (North Carolina),
`TX0008589858 (Mar. 20, 2018) (North Dakota), TX0008545032
`(Dec. 8, 2017) (Puerto Rico), TX0008555142 (Jan. 16, 2018)
`(Rhode Island), TX0008549132 (Oct. 18, 2017) (South Carolina),
`TX0008625275 (Aug. 7, 2018) (South Dakota), TX0008588806
`(Mar. 19, 2018) (Tennessee), TX0008530993 (Nov. 23, 2017) (Ver-
`mont), TX0008613009 (May 10, 2018) (Virginia), TX0008475282
`(May 24, 2017) (Virgin Islands), TX0008604570 (Feb. 12, 2018)
`(Wyoming).
`
`

`

`5
`
`A. The decision below would likely invali-
`date every copyright in an official an-
`notated state code.
`To hold that Georgia’s official annotated code is
`
`uncopyrightable, the decision below relied on three
`main factors. Although the court couched these factors
`in Georgia-specific terms, all three would apply equally
`to the official annotated code of almost any State. First,
`the Eleventh Circuit noted that an agent of a branch
`of Georgia’s government with lawmaking authority su-
`pervised preparation of the annotations. App. 30a.
`Something similar could be said of nearly any State
`with an official annotated code. Second, the court relied
`on the annotations’ ostensibly “authoritative weight,”
`App. 46a, particularly as evidenced by their placement
`in the official state code, App. 39a-42a. And third, it
`pointed to the fact that Georgia adopted its official
`annotated code through “bicameralism and present-
`ment.” App. 51a. But annotations in an official anno-
`tated state code will by definition be found within the
`State’s official code and be adopted by the State’s leg-
`islative process. Because the three factors relied upon
`by the decision below would apply to virtually any offi-
`cial annotated state code, its reasoning threatens to in-
`validate the copyright in any such code.
`
`The first factor on which the Eleventh Circuit
`
`relied to hold that Georgia’s annotations are not
`copyrightable is that their preparation is supervised
`by a commission that is “largely composed of officials
`from the legislative branch” and is “an agent of the
`Georgia General Assembly.” App. 30a. According to the
`
`

`

`6
`
`Eleventh Circuit, if the preparation of annotations is
`supervised by legislative or judicial officials, “it is sub-
`stantially more likely that the work is constructively
`authored by the people” because those officials have
`lawmaking authority. App. 36a-37a. This factor would
`be satisfied in the case of virtually every copyrighted
`annotated state code. As is true in Georgia, outside
`contractors generally prepare the annotations to those
`codes. See App. 27a-28a. But those contractors almost
`invariably prepare them under the supervision of leg-
`islative-branch or judicial-branch officials, including
`state legislators or state-court judges themselves in
`many cases.3
`
`
`3 Ala. Code 29-5A-22 (code commissioner supervises compi-
`
`lation of code); Ala. Code 29-5A-1(a) (legislative council appoints
`code commissioner); Ala. Code 29-6-1(a) (legislative council is
`comprised of state legislators); Alaska Stat. 24.20.070(b) (revision
`of code is a responsibility of legislative council); Alaska Stat.
`24.20.020 (legislative council is comprised of state legislators);
`Ark. Code Ann. 1-2-303(a)(1) (code revision commission supervises
`revision of code); Ark. Code Ann. 1-2-301(b) (majority of members
`of commission are members of state legislature, while the balance
`of members are appointed by the state supreme court); Colo. Rev.
`Stat. 2-5-101-102 (revisor of statutes, under supervision and di-
`rection of legislative committee, supervises preparation of code);
`Del. Code Ann. tit. 1, 210(b) (revisors of statutes, in consultation
`with legislative council, supervise preparation of code); Del. Code
`Ann. tit. 29, 1101 (legislative council is comprised of state legisla-
`tors); Kan. Stat. Ann. 77-133 (revisor of statutes supervises prep-
`aration of code); Kan. Stat. Ann. 46-1211(a) (revisor is appointed
`by legislative coordinating council); Kan. Stat. Ann. 46-1201(a)
`(legislative coordinating council is comprised of state legislators);
`Minn. Stat. 3C.08 (revisor of statutes supervises preparation of
`code); Minn. Stat. 3C.01 (legislative coordinating commission ap-
`points revisor); Minn. Stat. 3.303 (legislative coordinating com-
`mission is comprised of state legislators); Miss. Code Ann. 1-1-107
`
`
`

`

`7
`
`
`(legislative committee supervises preparation of code); Miss. Code
`Ann. 1-1-103 (committee is comprised of state legislators); Neb.
`Rev. Stat. 49.702 (revisor of statutes supervises preparation of
`code); Neb. Rev. Stat. 50-401.01(1)-(2) (revisor of statutes is ap-
`pointed by executive board of legislative council, which is com-
`prised of state legislators); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 17-A:1 (director
`of legislative services supervises preparation of code); N.H. Rev.
`Stat. Ann. 17-A:2 (director of legislative services is appointed by
`legislative committee); N.M. Stat. Ann. 12-1-3 (New Mexico com-
`pilation commission supervises preparation of code); N.M. Stat.
`Ann. 12-1-2 (commission is presided over by the state supreme
`court’s chief justice or a justice he designates, and includes the
`director of the legislative council service); N.C. Gen. Stat. 164-10
`(legislative services office supervises preparation of code); P.R.
`Laws Ann. tit. 2, 223 (leaders of legislature supervise preparation
`of code); R.I. Gen. Laws 43-4-18 (office of law revision supervises
`preparation of code); R.I. Gen. Laws 22-11-3.2 (legislative com-
`mittee appoints director of office of law revision); S.C. Code Ann.
`2-13-60 (code commissioner supervises preparation of code); S.C.
`Code Ann. 2-13-10 (legislative council appoints code commis-
`sioner); S.C. Code Ann. 2-11-10 (legislative council is comprised
`of state legislators); S.D. Codified Laws 2-16-6 (code commission
`supervises preparation of code); S.D. Codified Laws 2-16-3 (ma-
`jority of code commission members are state legislators or appoin-
`tees of legislative research council); Tenn. Code Ann. 1-1-105
`(code commission supervises preparation of code); Tenn. Code
`Ann. 1-1-101 (code commission is comprised of state supreme
`court’s chief justice, two members appointed by him, a director of
`the general assembly’s office of legal services, and the state’s at-
`torney general); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, 421-23 (legislative council
`supervises preparation of code); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 2, 402 (legisla-
`tive council consists of state legislators); Va. Code Ann. 30-146
`(code commission supervises preparation of code); Va. Code Ann.
`30-145 (code commission is comprised of a mix of state legislators,
`state-court judges, former state legislators, appointees of leaders
`and committees of the state legislature, and executive-branch of-
`ficials); V.I. Code Ann. tit. 2, 210 (code revisor supervises prepa-
`ration of code); V.I. Code Ann. tit. 2, 209 (code revisor is appointed
`by president of the legislature).
`
`

`

`8
`
`The second factor on which the Eleventh Circuit
`
`relied to hold that Georgia’s annotations are not copy-
`rightable is their ostensibly “authoritative weight.”
`App. 46a. The Eleventh Circuit gave a secondary and a
`primary reason for concluding Georgia’s annotations
`“carry authoritative weight.” Id. The secondary reason
`is simply a factual error. The Eleventh Circuit cited a
`number of Georgia state-court cases that relied on of-
`ficial comments compiled in Georgia’s annotated code.
`App. 43a-44a. But, as Georgia has explained, it claims
`no copyright in those comments. Pet. 27 n.7. The anno-
`tations in which Georgia asserts copyright are annota-
`tions of judicial and state attorney general opinions,
`and the Eleventh Circuit cited no case (as none exists)
`where a Georgia court so much as cited the Georgia
`code’s annotations of Georgia courts’ opinions, or those
`of the state attorney general. That is unsurprising. To
`rely on those annotations as authoritative commen-
`tary on what a court held or the state attorney general
`opined would be absurd.
`
`The principal reason the Eleventh Circuit gave for
`
`concluding that Georgia’s annotations have authorita-
`tive weight, however, is true of every official annotated
`state code. Namely, that court reasoned that Georgia’s
`annotations have authoritative weight because they
`are part of Georgia’s official code. App. 39a-42a. The
`court acknowledged that Georgia’s code “disclaims any
`legal effect in the annotations.” App. 41a. Regardless,
`the court reasoned that because “the official codifica-
`tion of Georgia statutes contains . . . annotations . . .
`they are to be read as authoritative in a way that
`
`

`

`9
`
`annotations ordinarily are not.” App. 42a. Whatever
`might be said of this peculiar reasoning on its merits,
`it applies by definition to every State that chooses to
`include annotations in its official statutory code.
`
`The third and final factor on which the Eleventh
`
`Circuit relied to hold that Georgia’s annotations are
`not copyrightable is Georgia’s “use of bicameralism
`and presentment to adopt the annotations.” App. 51a.
`This factor too, as the Eleventh Circuit understood it,
`would be satisfied in the case of every official anno-
`tated state code. In discussing this factor, the Eleventh
`Circuit initially noted that the Georgia legislature an-
`nually reenacts its annotated code. App. 47a-48a. But
`as that court acknowledged, Georgia only annually
`“reenact[s] the statutory portion of the Code.” App. 47a
`(emphasis added) (brackets omitted) (internal quota-
`tion marks omitted) (quoting 2017 Ga. Laws 275). In-
`deed, the court went on to note that Georgia’s annual
`code reenactments provide that “the annotations ‘con-
`tained [therein] are not enacted as statutes by the pro-
`visions [of those reenactments].’ ” App. 6a (quoting
`2015 Ga. Laws 9, sec. 54).
`
`Therefore, in reaching the conclusion that Georgia
`
`“adopted” its annotations through bicameralism and
`presentment, all the Eleventh Circuit ultimately relied
`upon is the fact that the law originally designating
`Georgia’s annotated code as its official code was
`adopted through bicameralism and presentment. App.
`47a (citing Ga. Code Ann. 1-1-1). This again is true of
`every official annotated state code. Every State or ter-
`ritory that has chosen to make its official code an
`
`

`

`10
`
`annotated code did so through a law enacted through
`bicameralism and presentment (with the exception of
`Nebraska, which has a unicameral legislature).4
`
`In sum, two of the three factors on which the Elev-
`
`enth Circuit relied to hold that Georgia’s annotations
`are not copyrightable—that they are part of the State’s
`official code, and that the State decided to include an-
`notations in its official code through a law enacted by
`its legislature and presented to its governor—are true,
`by definition, of every official annotated state code. The
`other factor—that legislative- or judicial-branch offi-
`cials supervise the preparation of those annotations—
`is true of virtually every official annotated state code
`in which the State (or the annotators with which it con-
`tracts) holds a copyright. Therefore, the decision below,
`if adopted by other circuits, would at the very least
`threaten—and likely invalidate—every copyright in an
`official annotated state code.
`
`
`
`B. Whether States can copyright the anno-
`tations in their official codes is an issue
`of profound importance.
`As Georgia explains in its petition, States use copy-
`
`right protections to facilitate the affordable production
`
`
`4 See, e.g., Ala. Code 1-1-14; Alaska Stat. 01.05.006; Ark.
`
`Code Ann. 1-2-102; Colo. Rev. Stat. 2-5-101(3), 2-5-102(1)(b); Del.
`Code Ann. tit. 1, 101(a), 210(a); Kan. Stat. Ann. 77-133(h), 77-137;
`Miss. Code Ann. 1-1-7, 1-1-8(1); Neb. Rev. Stat. 49-765, 49-767;
`N.M. Stat. Ann. 12-1-3, 12-1-7; P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 2, 226; S.C.
`Code Ann. 2-7-45, 2-13-60(3); Tenn. Code Ann. 1-1-105(a), 1-1-
`111(b); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 1, 51, tit. 2, 422(b).
`
`
`

`

`11
`
`of official annotated codes. All but one of the amici
`States contracts with a third party to prepare its code’s
`annotations.5 That third-party annotator is willing to
`prepare the annotations at an affordable rate (and in
`some cases at no cost at all) because it receives the rev-
`enues from the code’s sale. If States lost their copy-
`rights in their codes’ annotations, those annotations
`would be reproduced by actors like the respondent, the
`annotators’ revenue stream from their sale of codes
`would dry up, and the annotators would demand to be
`paid more for their work. At that point, amici States
`would be faced with the difficult choice of paying sub-
`stantial sums to third parties to create annotations for
`dozens of volumes of code, or making their official codes
`unannotated.
`
`If States opted to make their official codes unan-
`
`notated, the public would lose a valuable legal research
`tool. Although annotations are not authoritative
`simply because they appear in an official code, the legal
`community still uses them heavily, even in an age of
`electronic legal research. For example, one recent sur-
`vey of hundreds of lawyers found that a majority of the
`lawyers surveyed frequently or very frequently use the
`annotations in annotated codes to find cases relevant
`to their research. Am. Ass’n of Law Libraries Special
`Interest Section, A Study of Attorneys’ Legal Research
`
`5 Amicus State of Kansas is unique in that it self-publishes
`
`its annotated code. The annotations contained in the Kansas Stat-
`utes Annotated are the work product of the Office of the Kansas
`Revisor of Statutes, which is the holder of the copyright. The an-
`notations copyrighted by Kansas include summations of cases,
`attorney general opinions, and even law review articles that ad-
`dress a particular statute.
`
`

`

`12
`
`Practices and Opinions of New Associates’Research
`Skills 29 (2013), available at https://tinyurl.com/y6xhrcg3.
`The researchers found no statistically significant dif-
`ference between younger and older lawyers’ uses of an-
`notations. See id.
`
`Another recent study of hundreds of law-firm
`
`librarians found that seventy percent of those librari-
`ans believed that knowing how to use print codes re-
`mains an essential skill. Patrick Meyer, Law Firm
`Legal Research Requirements and the Legal Academy
`Beyond Carnegie, 35 Whittier L. Rev. 419, 445 (2014).
`Thirty-six percent believed that lawyers should usu-
`ally use print-based codes for statutory research. Id. at
`443. And many advise their firm’s lawyers to begin their
`legal research in annotated codes. See id. at 468, 482.
`
`Outside the legal community, the need for anno-
`
`tated codes is even greater. Pro se litigants, including
`prisoners, do not often have access to (or know how to
`use) expensive electronic legal research services like
`Westlaw or Lexis. With the help of annotated codes,
`however, they can find cases that interpret a statute
`that affects their interests, read brief summaries of
`those cases’ holdings, and look those cases up in report-
`ers or on the Internet, where most courts’ opinions are
`now freely available. Absent official annotated state
`codes, pro se litigants’ ability to understand the laws
`that govern them would be seriously hampered. In-
`deed, this Court once summarily affirmed a decision
`holding that a state that provided its prisoners with
`unannotated state codes denied them reasonable ac-
`cess to the courts because, in part, “[t]here [we]re no
`annotated codes” in the state prisons. Gilmore v. Lynch,
`
`

`

`13
`
`319 F. Supp. 105, 110 (N.D. Cal. 1970), aff ’d sub nom.
`Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15 (1971).
`
`If States stopped producing official annotated
`
`codes, annotated codes would still exist. Today, States
`with official unannotated codes typically have one or
`more unofficial annotated codes. The logic of the deci-
`sion below would not invalidate copyrights in unofficial
`annotated codes. The annotations in them are in no
`way “attributable to the constructive authorship of the
`People.” App. 4a.
`
`Unofficial annotated codes, however, are an unsat-
`
`isfactory replacement for official annotated codes. One
`of the drafters of the legislation that created Georgia’s
`official code recently observed, in explaining why Geor-
`gia opted for an official annotated code, that “creating
`only an unannotated version would force lawyers to
`purchase [two] versions”—the official unannotated
`version to ensure accurate citation to the code, and the
`unofficial annotated version for the annotations. Eliz-
`abeth Holland, Will You Have to Pay for the O.C.G.A.?:
`Copyrighting the Official Code of Georgia Annotated,
`26 J. Intell. Prop. L. 99, 111 (2019). Indeed, the decision
`below noted in support of its holding that relying on an
`unofficial code for s