The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday in Georgia v. Public.Resource.org that Georgia is not entitled to copyright protection for the official annotated code of the state.

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, based its reasoning on a prior holding from Banks v. Manchester (1888). In Banks, the court held that “non-binding, explanatory legal materials are not copyrightable when created by judges who possess the authority to make and interpret the law.” The court expanded this reasoning to legislative bodies since the legislature has a similar ability to make and interpret the law. The materials in question here are similarly authored as part of the work of the legislative bank.

A dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas focused on the fact that notes by the court reporters and other official materials that are published with the court are allowed copyright protections. Thomas pointed out that the annotations at issue in this case are similar to these materials, so it would make sense not to expand the holding of Banks to prohibit trademark protection. He believes the majority rule will make it hard on legal scholars who have relied on protection to now suddenly have that stripped away.

In a separate dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the court erred in expanding the holding of Banks because the role of a judge and the role of the legislature are vastly different. The annotations are not authored as part of the legislative process, but after.