United States: Will SCOTUS Salvage The Copyright Remedies Clarification Act In Allen v. Cooper?

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Allen v. Cooper, ostensibly to decide the fate of the Copyright Remedies Clarification Act (“CRCA”). The CRCA was enacted in 1990, the first of three laws designed to ensure that states and their instrumentalities, e.g. state universities, would be liable for intellectual property infringement. The Trademark Remedy Clarification Act (“TRCA”) and the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act (“PCA”) were enacted in 1992, but struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999) and Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999), respectively. 

Since Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank, lower courts have found the CRCA unconstitutional. Despite this relative consensus, and the lack of a circuit split on the CRCA’s constitutionality, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Allen v. Cooper and will hear oral arguments on November 5, 2019. 


In November 1996, salvage firm Intersal, Inc. found the shipwreck of Blackbeard’s infamous ship, the Queen Anne’s Revenge, off the coast of North Carolina. Intersal retained Petitioner Allen and his company Nautilus Productions to document the salvage of the ship, and Allen registered copyrights in the resulting photographs and videos, which were licensed to Nautilus.  Nautilus alleged that the State of North Carolina infringed these works, including by publicly displaying them on a government website.  The State paid $15,000 to Nautilus in settlement of those prior infringements, only to post (and thereby infringe) those same works again.  To avoid liability, the State of North Carolina then enacted “Blackbeard’s Law,” H.B. 184, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121- 25(b) (Aug. 18, 2015) which had the effect of converting Allen’s copyrighted works into “public record” materials not subject to copyright protection.  In response, Allen/Nautilus filed suit in federal court.

Procedural History

The district court denied North Carolina’s motion to dismiss Allen’s infringement claims on sovereign immunity grounds.  Although it found the CRCA clearly abrogated sovereign immunity, it recognized tension between Supreme Court precedents in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) and Florida Prepaid on one hand, and Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006), on the other.  Avoiding that tension, the district court found the CRCA was a valid exercise of authority under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment based on “sufficient evidence of infringement” and a “pattern of current and anticipated abuse.”  The Fourth Circuit reversed, applying Seminole Tribe and Florida Prepaid, and distinguishing Katz as “unique to the Bankruptcy Clause.”  The Fourth Circuit also found the CRCA an invalid exercise of legislative authority under the Fourteenth Amendment as it failed to expressly cite Section 5 of the Amendment, and was not “‘congruen[t] and proportional[]’ to the Fourteenth Amendment injury” Congress sought to remedy in enacting the CRCA, i.e. state-directed copyright infringement.

Petitioner Allen’s Brief

In arguing that the CRCA is a valid exercise of Congressional authority under Article I, Allen claims the Copyright Clause effects a “plan-of-the-convention” waiver of sovereign immunity, evidenced by the text of Copyright Clause.  Petitioner reasons that under the Copyright Clause Congress may “secure” to authors an “exclusive” right, which implies abrogation of state sovereign immunity.  Citing Alexander Hamilton’s Number 32 of The Federalist, Allen also claims that abrogation flows from the Copyright Clause because that provision “in express terms grant[s] an exclusive authority to the Union… to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally contradictory and repugnant.”  Looking to the purpose of the Copyright Clause, Allen claims the Framers intended a uniform system of exclusive rights, which is evidenced by the contemporaneous Copyright Act of 1790.  Allen also notes that the Copyright Clause was ratified without debate or effort to deter governmental overreach, implying that the states intended to waive sovereign immunity in ratifying it.

Rather than asking the Court to overrule Florida Prepaid, Allen argues that the Copyright Clause abrogates sovereign immunity consistent with Seminole Tribe, Florida Prepaid, and Katz.  Allen explains that Seminole Tribe overruled Pennsylvania v. Union Gas, 491 U.S. 1 (1989) (which found that the interstate commerce power supported abrogation), finding that the Indian commerce clause could not abrogate sovereign immunity, but ventured too far in stating “Article I cannot be used to circumvent the constitutional limitations placed upon federal jurisdiction.”  Allen argues that respondent in Florida Prepaid conceded this dictum from Seminole Tribe, obviating any search for “compelling evidence” that abrogation was intended in ratifying the Copyright Clause.  Allen claims that the kind of “clause-by-clause” analysis performed by the Katz Court is warranted here.  According to Allen, the Copyright Clause presents “the strongest possible case for abrogation” because it has the same “appeal to in rem jurisdiction that animates Katz.

Allen also argues that the CRCA is valid under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Allen rejects the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning that Congress must recite “section 5” or “Fourteenth Amendment” to invoke those Congressional powers.  Petitioners reasons that even Florida Prepaid acknowledged that state deprivations of patents can be remedied by Section 5, and that “the CRCA supplies the factual predicate that was lacking in Florida Prepaid.”  Such evidence includes (1) a Congressional study performed by the Register of Copyrights finding state infringement was a growing problem; (2) testimony that States must be liable for damages for infringement; and (3) a catalogue of documented State infringement.  According to Petitioner, that extensive record revealed pervasive and growing state copyright infringements unremedied by injunctive relief (e.g. because small copyright owners lack the resources to take on states) and that the CRCA was a “necessary remedy” for this infringement. 

Respondent State of North Carolina’s Brief

In response to Allen’s arguments that the CRCA is valid pursuant to the Copyright Clause, North Carolina argues that abrogation is appropriate only where there is “compelling evidence” of intent to do so by “express words” or by “insurmountable implication” in the Constitution’s text, structure, and history.  North Carolina relies on Florida Prepaid in arguing that such compelling evidence is absent, and rejects Allen’s argument that Florida Prepaid does not bind the Court to rule that the Copyright Clause does not abrogate state sovereignty because respondent in Florida Prepaid conceded that point.  North Carolina claims that, under the Court’s precedent, such a concession does not erode the binding nature of the explicit jurisdictional holding in Florida Prepaid.  North Carolina also counters Allen’s textual argument that Congress’ power to “secure” to authors “exclusive” rights must abrogate state immunity, claiming that the Copyright Clause authorizes Congress to “secure” such “exclusive” rights to authors, not to Congress itself. 

Rebutting Allen’s argument that the Copyright Clause “reserves an enumerated power exclusively for Congress,” North Carolina discusses Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546, 558 (1973), which upheld a state law criminalizing unauthorized tape reproductions, and “continued the long tradition of dual federal-state regulation of copyrights.”  North Carolina also distinguishes Katz, claiming that the Bankruptcy Clause is unique due to “the singular nature of bankruptcy courts’ [in rem] jurisdiction,” and its “unique” design “specifically to intrude on state sovereignty.”  Rejecting Allen’s claim that the first Copyright Act evidences intent to abrogate, North Carolina explains that the Copyright Act only covered infringement by “persons,” a term the Court has held does not include the sovereign.  North Carolina contrasts this with the first Bankruptcy Act’s authorization of federal courts to discharge debtors from state prisons, a clear invasion of state sovereign immunity, which North Carolina claims evidences the Framers’ disparate intentions in ratifying the two constitutional provisions under which those Acts were enacted. 

North Carolina also argues that the CRCA is not a valid exercise of Congress’ power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was not passed to remedy unconstitutional conduct, i.e. intentional infringement that cannot otherwise be remedied.  According to North Carolina, that is evidenced by Congress’ failure to consider whether the infringement at issue was intentional, or whether there were alternative remedies to the CRCA.  Specifically, North Carolina points to the former Register of Copyrights’ testimony that the infringement of concern was often unintentional, and argues that even if injunctive relief is inadequate, other remedies may suffice, e.g. suits in contract or tort, for unconstitutional takings, or section 1983 claims against those responsible.  North Carolina also argues that Congress failed to identify a widespread pattern of violations, claiming Congress identified “at most a dozen instances of copyright infringement by States,” that many of these were rejected by courts on their merits or did not involve intentional infringement, and that the CRCA is neither congruent nor proportional to the unconstitutional conduct the CRCA sought to remedy.


There seems little practical justification for a state institution to be allowed to infringe copyright with impunity.  Weighed against the harm to publishers that rely on sales to state entities or whose works become commercially unviable after being publicly distributed by state action, there seems to be a policy justification for abrogating sovereign immunity in at least some circumstances of copyright infringement by state actors.  However, the narrower question before the Court in Allen v. Cooper is whether the CRCA achieves this policy objective in a constitutional manner.  If not, Congress may be asked to revisit the issue with new legislation supported either by Supreme Court direction on the ability to pass Article I legislation that abrogates state immunity, or by a legislative record of widespread constitutional harm from state infringement.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions