Another interesting decision today. Some of you may remember this case.
The SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that Georgia cannot claim copyright over the official annotated legal code.
The majority opinion, like @legowarrior, argued that it was unfair for access to the law to hinge on ability to pay.
Imagine a Georgia citizen interested in learning his legal rights and duties. If he reads the economy-class version of the Georgia Code available online, he will see laws requiring political candidates to pay hefty qualification fees (with no indigency exception), criminalizing broad categories of consensual sexual conduct, and exempting certain key evidence in criminal trials from standard evidentiary limitations—with no hint that important aspects of those laws have been held unconstitutional by the Georgia Supreme Court. … Meanwhile, first-class readers with access to the annotations will be assured that these laws are, in crucial respects, unenforceable relics that the legislature has not bothered to narrow or repeal.
But once again, the breakdown is interesting. That quote came from Roberts, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch
Meanwhile, the dissents came from Ginsburg (!), Breyer, Alito, and Thomas.
What a strange timeline we live in!