103 F.4th 830
D.C. Cir.2024Background
- The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) prohibits circumvention of technological barriers protecting digital copyrighted works, with certain exemptions allowed via triennial rulemaking.
- The Librarian of Congress granted an exemption to allow servicing and repair of advanced medical devices by independent operators, following a recommendation from the Register of Copyrights.
- Trade associations representing medical device manufacturers challenged the exemption, arguing it violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and that the Librarian acted ultra vires and unconstitutionally.
- The district court dismissed the claims, holding that the Library of Congress is part of "the Congress" and thus not an "agency" under the APA, so sovereign immunity barred suit.
- On appeal, the associations dropped their constitutional arguments, arguing instead that Congress provided a statutory waiver for APA review of these copyright regulations, regardless of "agency" status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are DMCA copyright rules subject to the APA's judicial review provisions? | Congress expressly made all Register of Copyrights' actions under Title 17 subject to the APA, including DMCA rules approved by the Librarian | The Library of Congress is part of "the Congress," not an "agency," so APA review and waiver of sovereign immunity do not apply | Yes. Because Congress specified in 17 U.S.C. § 701(e) that Title 17 actions are subject to the APA, DMCA rules are reviewable, regardless of "agency" status |
| Does the APA provide a waiver of sovereign immunity for suits against the Librarian regarding copyright rulemaking? | The waiver is provided by statute via 17 U.S.C. § 701(e), which covers actions of the Register (and thus actions approved by the Librarian) | There is no express waiver for the Librarian or Library of Congress; waivers must be strictly construed and not implied | Yes. Reading the Copyright Act and DMCA together, the APA’s waiver applies to Register/Librarian rulemaking under Title 17 |
| Is the distinction between "Register of Copyrights" and "Librarian of Congress" in rulemaking outcome-determinative for APA review? | Actions of the Register are always subject to Librarian’s approval under Title 17, so APA review should encompass both | Only actions of the Register—not the Librarian—fall under § 701(e); the DMCA gives final authority to the Librarian, so those rules are not reviewable | No. Because all Register actions under Title 17 require Librarian’s approval, both are covered by the APA waiver |
| Were the associations' APA claims properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction/sovereign immunity? | No, because of statutory waiver | Yes, because Library is not an agency and waiver is not express | No, dismissal reversed and remanded to address merits of APA claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Libr. of Cong., 750 F.2d 89 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (held that the Library of Congress is not an "agency" for APA purposes)
- Ethnic Emps. of Libr. of Cong. v. Boorstin, 751 F.2d 1405 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (reaffirmed that Congress is not an APA agency and thus not subject to APA claims)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (established presumption in favor of judicial review of agency action)
- United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (1992) (waivers of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text)
- United States v. Freeman, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 556 (1845) (in pari materia canon for reading related statutes together)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (articulates the fundamental principle of judicial review)