Allen v. Cooper

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Allen v. Cooper
Term: 2019
Important Dates
Argument: November 5, 2019
Decided: March 23, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Neil Gorsuch


Allen v. Cooper is a case that was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 5, 2019, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.[1]

The court affirmed the 4th Circuit's decision in a 9-0 ruling, holding Congress did not have the authority to abrogate—or take away—state sovereign immunity from copyright infringement suits under the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act.[2] Click here for more information.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Frederick Allen, a videographer, sued North Carolina for copyright infringement. Allen also asked the court to declare a 2015 state law unconstitutional, claiming the law was passed in bad faith. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina rejected the state's motion to dismiss, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's ruling.
  • The issue: "Whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity via the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act, Pub. L. No. 101-553, 104 Stat. 2749 (1990), in providing remedies for authors of original expression whose federal copyrights are infringed by States."[3]
  • The outcome: The court affirmed the 4th Circuit's decision in a 9-0 ruling, holding Congress did not have the authority to abrogate—or take away—state sovereign immunity from copyright infringement suits under the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act.[2]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • March 23, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the 4th Circuit's ruling.
    • November 5, 2019: Oral argument
    • June 3, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • January 4, 2019: Allen filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • July 10, 2018: The 4th Circuit reversed and remanded the Eastern District of North Carolina's ruling.

    Background

    In 1996, Intersal, Inc. discovered the wreck of the ship the Queen Anne's Revenge, the ship of the pirate Edward Teach, also known as Blackbeard, near Beaufort, North Carolina. In 1998, Intersal, Inc. entered an agreement with the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (Department). The agreement acknowledged North Carolina's ownership of the ship and its artifacts and gave Intersal salvage rights. Intersal then retained Frederick Allen, a videographer, and his production company, Nautilus Productions, LLC, to document the salvage.[4]

    Allen registered 13 copyrights of video archives and still images he accumulated during the salvage with the U.S. Copyright Office.[4]

    In 2013, Allen sued the Department for publishing Allen's work without permission and infringing upon Allen's copyrights. The parties reached a settlement agreement in October 2013, clarifying respective rights by dividing some of Allen's documentation between "commercial documentaries" and "non-commercial media." Allen alleged that after the 2013 agreement, the Department continued to infringe copyrights.[4]

    In 2015, Allen filed suit in federal court. He alleged North Carolina violated his copyrights and also asked the court to declare a 2015 state law unconstitutional. The law, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121–25(b), provided that photographs, videos, recordings, and other documentary materials of a shipwreck are public record. Allen argued the law was enacted in bad faith.[4]

    The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina rejected North Carolina's motion to dismiss, holding the state and the individuals involved were not protected from immunity under the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act. North Carolina appealed, and the 4th Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's ruling.[4]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

    Questions presented:
    • Whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity via the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act, Pub. L. No. 101-553, 104 Stat. 2749 (1990), in providing remedies for authors of original expression whose federal copyrights are infringed by States.[3]

    Outcome

    In a unanimous opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, holding Congress did not have the authority to abrogate—or take away—state sovereign immunity from copyright infringement suits under the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act.[2]

    Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined. Justice Clarence Thomas joined in part and filed an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer also filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[2]

    Opinion

    In her opinion, Justice Kagan wrote that U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank (1999) "precluded Congress from using its Article I powers—including its authority over copyrights—to deprive States of sovereign immunity."[2]

    “ Florida Prepaid all but prewrote our decision today. That precedent made clear that Article I’s Intellectual Property Clause could not provide the basis for an abrogation of sovereign immunity. And it held that Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment could not support an abrogation on a legislative record like the one here. For both those reasons, we affirm the judgment below. [5] ”

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Thomas

    Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. He joined all of the court's opinion except for the final paragraph in Part II–A and the final paragraph in Part II–B. [2]

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[2]

    “ I write separately to note two disagreements and one question that remains open for resolution in a future case. ... [First, t]he Court claims we need '"special justification[s]"' to overrule precedent because error alone 'cannot overcome stare decisis.' Ante, at 9–10. That approach 'does not comport with our judicial duty under Article III.' ... Second, I do not join the Court’s discussion regarding future copyright legislation. ... We should not purport to advise Congress on how it might exercise its legislative authority, nor give our blessing to hypothetical statutes or legislative records not at issue here.


    Finally, I believe the question whether copyrights are property within the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause remains open. [5]

    		”

    Justice Breyer

    Justice Stephen Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. He was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In his opinion, Breyer said the court had erred in its 1996 decision in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida and in Florida Prepaid (1999).[2]

    Breyer wrote:

    “ Indeed, we went astray ... by holding that Congress exceeded its §5 powers when it passed a patent counterpart to the copyright statute at issue here. See id., at 652–664 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But recognizing that my longstanding view has not carried the day, and that the Court’s decision in Florida Prepaid controls this case, I concur in the judgment.[5] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio



    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Allen v. Cooper," accessed June 5, 2019
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Supreme Court of the United States, Allen v. Cooper, decided March 23, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Questions presented: 18-877 Allen v. Cooper," accessed June 5, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Allen v. Cooper, decided July 10, 2018
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Allen_v._Cooper&oldid=9117145"