Allen v. Cooper
140 S. Ct. 994
| SCOTUS | 2020Background
- Intersal discovered the shipwreck Queen Anne’s Revenge; North Carolina (the State owner) contracted Intersal, which hired videographer Frederick Allen to document salvage work. Allen registered copyrights in his photos and videos.
- North Carolina published some of Allen’s works online; after an initial settlement over some postings, Allen sued the State for copyright infringement seeking money damages.
- North Carolina invoked state sovereign immunity to move to dismiss; Allen relied on the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (CRCA), which states that a State “shall not be immune” from federal copyright suits and makes States liable “in the same manner and to the same extent as” private parties.
- The District Court held the CRCA clearly abrogated immunity and (following Fitzpatrick precedent) that Congress could validly abrogate under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment; the Fourth Circuit reversed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed: Congress lacked authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity for copyright suits under Article I (Intellectual Property Clause) and §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, relying principally on Florida Prepaid and the Boerne congruence-and-proportionality test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity for copyright suits under Article I (Intellectual Property Clause) | Allen: Article I power to secure authors’ exclusive rights includes authority to subject States to suit to protect those rights. | Cooper (State): Article I cannot be used to abrogate sovereign immunity (Seminole Tribe); CRCA thus invalid under Article I. | Court: Article I cannot support abrogation here—Florida Prepaid controls and Katz is limited to the Bankruptcy Clause. |
| Whether Congress validly abrogated immunity under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment (power to “enforce”) | Allen: Alternatively, §5 authorizes abrogation to remedy or prevent state deprivations of property (copyrights) without due process. | Cooper: Even under §5, CRCA is not a congruent and proportional response to any Fourteenth Amendment violations; legislative record is too thin. | Court: §5 authority requires congruence and proportionality (Boerne); CRCA fails on the legislative record—insufficient evidence of intentional constitutional deprivations and of inadequate state remedies—so §5 does not authorize the abrogation. |
| Whether CRCA’s text clearly abrogates state sovereign immunity | Allen: CRCA’s language expressly removes immunity and equalizes state liability with private parties. | Cooper: (not disputed) — Parties agree CRCA uses clear abrogating language. | Court: Congress used unequivocal statutory language; but clear language alone is insufficient without constitutional authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (Article I cannot be used to abrogate state sovereign immunity)
- Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999) (Patent Remedy Act invalid; Article I cannot support abrogation and §5 abrogation failed given legislative record)
- Central Va. Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006) (Bankruptcy Clause treated as exceptional; holding limited and not a general clause-by-clause rule)
- City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (congruence-and-proportionality standard for §5 enforcement power)
- Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976) (Congress may abrogate state immunity using §5 authority in some circumstances)
- Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000) (limits on §5—Congress cannot redefine substantive rights; prophylactic measures must be congruent and proportional)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (negligent conduct does not constitute a Fourteenth Amendment deprivation)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (existence of adequate state remedies can satisfy due process)
- Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123 (1932) (copyrights characterized as property)
- Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973) (copyright duties run against states as well as private parties)