How Georgia Tried to Paywall Its Laws

and How the High Court Fixed It

The background

The State of Georgia publishes its authoritative statutes in a single compilation called the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (or OCGA). That version includes the text of every statute in force plus annotations (summaries of court decisions, attorney general opinions, legislative history, etc.). Supreme Court+2Quimbee+2

Under Georgia law, the OCGA is the official code. Yet access to the full volume — particularly including the annotations — was limited to paying purchasers, because Georgia claimed copyright over that compilation. Legal Information Institute+1

In 2013, technology activist Carl Malamud purchased a print set of the OCGA for over $1,000, digitized it, and published it online for free in protest of the paywall. Wikipedia+1

The legal fight

  • 2015: Georgia’s Code Revision Commission sued Public.Resource.Org (PRO) for copyright infringement, demanding PRO take down the OCGA material. Quimbee+1

  • 2017: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled in favor of Georgia, concluding that the annotations are eligible for copyright because they lacked the “force of law.” Legal Information Institute

  • 2018: On October 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit unanimously reversed the district court ruling, holding that the OCGA annotations are intrinsically public-domain material under the “government edicts” doctrine. Wikipedia+1

  • 2019: On June 24 the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. Oral arguments took place December 2, 2019. Supreme Court+1

  • 2020: On April 27, the Supreme Court issued its decision (5-4), holding that Georgia cannot claim copyright over its official annotated code. Supreme Court+1

From the initial digitization in 2013 to the Supreme Court decision in 2020, this fight stretched about 7 years.

Why it should have been simple

One might have assumed that the basic principle — laws must be accessible to the public — would make this a straightforward case. After all, it is a core component of fairness in the rule of law: you cannot obey or challenge a law you cannot read.

The Supreme Court underscored that logic. In its opinion it stated:

“Whatever the precise definition of the ‘government edicts’ doctrine, one essential premise is free for publication to all.” Justia Law

The annotations were produced under legislative authority: the Code Revision Commission (a body largely composed of legislators), hired a private publisher (LexisNexis) under a “work-for-hire” agreement, and the result was the official code. The majority found that the annotations were “authored by an arm of the legislature in the course of its legislative duties.” Legal Information Institute+1

Given those facts, many observers believed a clear decision in favor of free access should have come earlier.

What was at stake: restricting access to law itself

Until the 2020 ruling, Georgia’s position meant that the only authorized version (with annotations) carried a barrier: pay-wall, license restrictions, or library access only. Some investigative journalists found that public libraries lacked current copies of the OCGA, or stored them behind locked doors.

Although the statutes (text without the annotations) were still accessible in some form, the annotations added substantial interpretive value: summarizing case law, history, cross references. Georgia’s argument was that these annotations were distinct from law and thus copyrightable. Critics pointed out: when the official code labels that version “official” and treats it as the one authoritative source, restricting access to it amounts to restricting public access to the law. Kluwer Copyright Blog

The urgency: If access to the full official law is limited by cost, licensing or paywall, then democracy suffers — citizens cannot be expected to know what the law is.

The Supreme Court’s key holding

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, applying the government edicts doctrine to legislative materials (not just judicial opinions). The Court held that legislators and those acting in their capacity cannot be considered “authors” of the works they produce in their official duties, so such works fall into the public domain. Supreme Court

The Court rejected Georgia's argument that only works with “the force of law” are uncopyrightable, clarifying the doctrine is simpler in focus: was the work produced by judges or legislators in their official capacity? If yes, no copyright. SCOTUSblog

Implications

  • Georgia’s annotated code is now available for free online, uncopyrighted.

  • The decision strengthens public access to legal materials across the country: other states cannot as easily argue that their official codes, annotated or not, are behind paywalls if they are legislative works.

  • It reaffirmed a core democratic principle: “the law” belongs to the public, not to a private or government-copyright holder charging for access.

  • It exposed how long citizens had gone without truly efficient access to their laws, until litigation forced it.

Conclusion

The Georgia case illustrates a deeply troubling truth: until the courts intervened, one state had effectively placed its official, authoritative statutes (along with interpretive annotations) behind paywalls or licensing barriers. It took seven years of litigation, from 2013 to 2020, for the Supreme Court to declare that barrier unconstitutional under the government-edicts doctrine.

In a democracy, the idea that you must pay or negotiate access to the very laws that govern you stands in direct opposition to transparency and fairness. Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org reaffirmed that the people must have free access to the laws under which they live.