In Allen v. Cooper, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2020 that states cannot be sued in federal court for copyright infringement, striking down the federal law that had tried to make them liable. The decision means a creator whose work is copied by a state government generally has no path to money damages in federal court unless the state consents to the suit.1Legal Information Institute. Allen v. Cooper – Syllabus
The Dispute Behind the Case
Frederick Allen is a videographer who spent more than a decade documenting the recovery of the Queen Anne’s Revenge, the flagship of the pirate Blackbeard. He registered copyrights in the photos and videos he produced during the salvage work. North Carolina then published those materials on a public website without his permission and without paying him.
An early settlement did not end the problem. The state kept using the protected material after a formal complaint, and Allen sued in federal court, framing the conduct as a systematic violation of his intellectual property rights.
The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act
Allen relied on the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (CRCA). Congress wrote the law to make states and their employees answerable in federal court for copyright infringement on the same footing as private defendants. Section 511 says plainly that no state or state officer is immune from suit in federal court for such violations.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 U.S.C. § 511
Why the State Claimed Immunity
Sovereign immunity generally blocks private lawsuits against a state in federal court unless the state agrees to be sued.3Library of Congress. Modern Doctrine on State Sovereign Immunity The Eleventh Amendment is the source of that protection.4Library of Congress. U.S. Constitution: Eleventh Amendment For Congress to override it, the statute has to say so clearly and rest on a constitutional power that allows abrogation, most often the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee against being deprived of property without due process.5Library of Congress. Abrogation of State Sovereign Immunity The question in Allen’s case was whether the CRCA met that second requirement.
What the Supreme Court Held
The Court held that it did not. The justices concluded that Congress lacked authority to revoke state sovereign immunity for copyright claims, so the CRCA was unconstitutional as applied to the states.1Legal Information Institute. Allen v. Cooper – Syllabus
To reach that result, the Court applied the congruence and proportionality test, which asks whether a federal law is a measured response to a documented constitutional problem.6Library of Congress. Modern Doctrine on Enforcement Clause The historical record, the Court said, did not show a widespread pattern of states intentionally infringing copyrights in ways that violated the Constitution. The CRCA also swept too broadly, reaching every instance of infringement rather than the narrower class of intentional or reckless state conduct that might raise due-process concerns.1Legal Information Institute. Allen v. Cooper – Syllabus
What the Ruling Means for Copyright Holders
After Allen v. Cooper, a private creator generally cannot recover money damages from a state in federal court for copyright infringement. The state has to consent to the suit for that door to open. The decision leaves the constitutional bar for stripping states of their immunity high, and it puts the burden on creators to think carefully about how they license and share work with state agencies, universities, and other state-run entities that may use it.1Legal Information Institute. Allen v. Cooper – Syllabus