Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Allen v. Cooper

Supreme Court of the United States · 2020 · Constitutional Law
140 S. Ct. 994 (2020)
Updated
Constitutional LawState Sovereign ImmunityCopyrightEleventh AmendmentSection 5 of the Fourteenth Amendmentsovereign immunitycopyright infringementCRCA

Facts

Frederick Allen, a videographer, documented the recovery of Blackbeard's shipwreck, Queen Anne's Revenge, and registered copyrights in his videos and photos. North Carolina allegedly published some of those works online and in a newsletter without permission, despite an earlier settlement over similar allegations. Allen sued the State for copyright infringement in federal court seeking money damages. North Carolina moved to dismiss on sovereign-immunity grounds, while Allen relied on the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act, which purported to remove state immunity from copyright suits.

Issue

Did Congress validly abrogate the States' sovereign immunity from copyright infringement suits in federal court through the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act? Specifically, could the CRCA rest on either Congress's Article I power under the Intellectual Property Clause or its enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Rule

A federal court may hear a suit against a nonconsenting State only if Congress has unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate immunity and has acted pursuant to a valid constitutional source of authority. Article I, including the Intellectual Property Clause, cannot be used to abrogate state sovereign immunity. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment can authorize abrogation only when the statute is congruent and proportional to preventing or remedying actual constitutional violations, here intentional or reckless deprivations of property without adequate state remedies.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Congress enacts the Digital Works Accountability Act, providing that a State "shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment or any other doctrine of sovereign immunity" from federal suits for unauthorized copying of federally protected digital media. Maya Torres sues the State of Ohio in federal court under the Act for damages after a state museum posts her registered audio files online without permission.

Ohio moves to dismiss on sovereign-immunity grounds. What is the strongest response?

Explanation. A federal court may hear a suit against a nonconsenting State only when Congress has unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate immunity and has acted pursuant to valid constitutional authority. Clear text alone is not enough. The majority opinion reaffirmed both requirements.