HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.crs/govdanq0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
~* or 101 '
Researh Servi k-M-
Copyright and State Sovereign Immunity:
The Allen v. Cooper Decision
May 15, 2020
On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Allen v. Cooper, concluding that Congress
lacked the authority to enact the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (CRCA), which purported
to abrogate state sovereign immunity in copyright infringement actions. The CRCA, which sought to
remedy alleged state copyright infringement, provides that any State, and any [State] instrumentality,
officer, or employee shall be liable for copyright infringement in the same manner and to the same
extent as any nongovernmental entity. In Allen, the Supreme Court held that the CRCA was not a valid
exercise of Congress's constitutional powers under Article I or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment,
although the opinion leaves open the possibility that a narrower congressional abrogation of state
sovereign immunity for copyright suits might be constitutional.
The immediate practical effect of the decision is that copyright holders cannot sue state governments for
copyright infringement without their consent. The decision's broader significance lies in clarifying the
limitations on Congress's power to provide remedies for state constitutional violations. This Sidebar will
review the law of state sovereign immunity, the dispute in Allen v. Cooper, the Court's opinion, and the
implications for Congress.
The Law of State Sovereign Immunity
Because states are separate and independent sovereigns within the U.S. federal system, they generally
cannot be sued in state or federal court without their consent. Although Congress has some authority to
abrogate state sovereign immunity-that is, to enact statutes authorizing certain lawsuits against states-
this authority is fairly narrow. First, Congress's intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity must be
unmistakably clear from the statutory language. Second, even an unmistakably clear abrogation is
effective only when made under a valid grant of constitutional authority.
In the 1996 case of Seminole Tribe v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot abrogate state
sovereign immunity pursuant to its Article I powers, such as the Commerce Clause. Seminole Tribe
acknowledged, however, that Congress could rely on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment as a source
of power to abrogate state immunity. In later cases, the Court established that Congress may rely on the
Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate state immunity only if there is a congruence and proportionality
between the constitutional injuries that the abrogation legislation seeks to remedy, and the means
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10465
CRS Lega Sidebar
Prepaed for Membeivs and
Cornm ittees o4 Cor~qress ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/govdanq0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)