Supreme Court Leaves in Place Injunction Preserving Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter’s Position; Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, June 30, 2026

 Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP; Supreme Court Leaves in Place Injunction Preserving Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter’s Position

"Munger, Tolles & Olson and co-counsel Democracy Forward secured a significant victory for Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter in litigation challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to remove her from office. On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the administration’s emergency application in Blanche v. Perlmutter, leaving in place the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s injunction preserving Perlmutter’s position while her legal challenge proceeds. 

Shira Perlmutter contends that her removal was unlawful because only the Librarian of Congress has authority to remove the Register of Copyrights and that then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche was not lawfully serving as Acting Librarian of Congress when he attempted to remove her. By declining to stay the D.C. Circuit’s injunction, the Supreme Court allowed Perlmutter to remain in office while the litigation continues."

US Supreme Court won't let Trump remove top copyright official for now; Reuters, June 30, 2026

John Kruzel, Reuters ; US Supreme Court won't let Trump remove top copyright official for now

The Court’s Hypocrisy; The New York Times, June 29, 2026

The Editorial Board, The New York Times; The Court’s Hypocrisy

"For nearly a century, the Supreme Court has made it difficult for a president to defy the clear text of a law passed by Congress. The court prevented Franklin D. Roosevelt from firing a leader of the Federal Trade Commission in 1935. It stopped the Reagan administration from defying a pollution investigation in 1988. It helped block Barack Obama’s attempt to expand immigration protections in 2016.

Its decision Monday allowing President Trump to fire F.T.C. commissioners represents a break with this history. The ruling dismisses longstanding precedent and effectively discards a 112-year-old law that said the president could fire commissioners only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” Mr. Trump can now fire commissioners in regulatory agencies simply because he wants to...

Central to the success of the American experiment over nearly 250 years has been the balance of powers among the three branches of government. Together, Mr. Trump and this Supreme Court are upsetting that balance. They are deviating from a tradition that has lasted more than a century, in which parts of the government operate with bipartisan leadership removed from everyday partisan politics, as Congress intended. The effect is to sideline Congress, which the authors of the Constitution viewed as the primary branch among equals. The Supreme Court on Monday created a government run by a very small number of people who work at either the Supreme Court or the White House."

Can AI Author Copyrightable Work? The Supreme Court Just Declined to Say Yes; JD Supra, June 4, 2026

Kayla Ganir, Benjamin Greenberg, JD Supra ; Can AI Author Copyrightable Work? The Supreme Court Just Declined to Say Yes

"By denying certiorari in the Thaler Case, the Supreme Court left intact several key principles flowing from the D.C. Circuit’s application of the Copyright Act’s human authorship requirement:

• A work generated autonomously by an AI system, without meaningful human contribution, lacks the human authorship necessary to qualify for copyright protection.
• The human authorship requirement does not impose a blanket prohibition against works created with the assistance of AI—rather, it requires that the author of that work be a human being and not the machine itself.
• Whether a work created with the help of AI is registerable depends on the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the work’s creation, including how the AI tool operates and at what stage of the creative process it is used, and the overall extent of human creativity involved.
• The manner in which an applicant describes the role of AI in a copyright application will influence how the Copyright Office will assess the work under the human authorship requirement.

These principles serve as an important reminder that artists and creators should carefully consider the extent to which they rely on AI in their creative processes if they intend to seek copyright protection for their work. The Thaler Case underscores that while AI may offer innovative creative tools, protection under the Copyright Act remains grounded in human creativity, input, and judgment."

What really won the trillion-dollar Supreme Court case; TED Talks, April 2026

 Neal Kumar Katyal , TED Talks ; What really won the trillion-dollar Supreme Court case

"In November 2025, Neal Kumar Katyal was asked to do what no US Supreme Court litigator had ever done: convince the justices to strike down a sitting president's signature initiative. After enlisting the help of four unlikely coaches — and one secret weapon he hasn't told anyone about until now — he walked into the courtroom ready for anything. What he discovered about winning and connecting might just change how you think about performing under pressure."

Neal Katyal draws criticism over TED Talk revealing AI use in SCOTUS tariffs case; ABA Journal, May 11, 2026

 AMANDA ROBERT , ABA Journal; Neal Katyal draws criticism over TED Talk revealing AI use in SCOTUS tariffs case

"Attorney Neal Katyal revealed last week that he used artificial intelligence to prepare for his argument against President Donald Trump’s tariffs, drawing swift criticism online. 

Katyal, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Milbank, argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court in November. According to Bloomberg Law, he said during a TED Talk released Thursday that he “won” using a “bespoke AI system” trained on 25 years of justices’ questions during oral argument and their eventual opinions.

The system was built by Harvey AI, which “predicted many of the questions the justices asked—sometimes almost word for word,” Katyal said in an X post promoting the TED Talk. Katyal, a former acting solicitor general who has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court, also credited mindset, improv and meditation coaches for helping him prepare for the argument."

Sony’s failed war against Internet piracy may doom other copyright lawsuits; Ars Technica, May 11, 2026

 JON BRODKIN, Ars Technica ; Sony’s failed war against Internet piracy may doom other copyright lawsuits

"Sony and other major record labels recently suffered a thorough defeat at the Supreme Court in their attempt to make Internet service providers pay huge financial penalties for their customers’ copyright infringement. Sony’s loss is certain to have wide-ranging effects on copyright lawsuits, offering protection for ISPs, their customers, and potentially other technology companies whose services can be used for both legal and illegal purposes.

In Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Supreme Court ruled that cable Internet firm Cox is not liable under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) when its customers use their broadband connections to download or upload pirated materials."

Why A Potential Supreme Court Copyright Decision Could Change The Music Business; Forbes, April 9, 2026

 Bill Hochberg, Forbes; Why A Potential Supreme Court Copyright Decision Could Change The Music Business 

"There’s billions at stake for music companies and investors who may get a big hit – and not the kind they like – if the U.S. Supreme Court decides music creators and their heirs can get back their copyrights worldwide."

SCOTUS Rules Conversion Therapy Ban Likely Unconstitutional; Psychology Today, April 4, 2026

Allan E. Barsky PhD, MSW, JD, Psychology Today; SCOTUS Rules Conversion Therapy Ban Likely Unconstitutional

Recent SCOTUS conversion therapy ruling gives rise to ethical and legal conflicts.

• "The Supreme Court suggests that state bans on conversion therapy might be unconstitutional.
• Regardless of whether state bans are constitutional, conversion therapy is harmful.
• Mental health professionals' ethical duties to clients include doing no harm.
• Even if conversion therapy is found to be legally permissible, it is unethical."

Copyright Head Chides Supreme Court’s ‘Shocking’ Cox Opinion; Bloomberg Law, April 3, 2026

 

Annelise Levy

, Bloomberg Law; Copyright Head Chides Supreme Court’s ‘Shocking’ Cox Opinion

"US Copyright Office Director Shira Perlmutter said the Supreme Court put “little thought” into the implications of its recent decision absolving an internet service provider for not shuttering accounts of users who repeatedly pirated music.

"The throwing out of many, many decades of copyright law on secondary liability so quickly and with so little analysis was shocking," Perlmutter said Friday at a Stanford Law School event."

The Supreme Court’s Decision on Indirect Internet Copyright Liability Could Have Far-Reaching Effects; The National Law Review, April 1, 2026

Jeffrey D. Dyess, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP , The National Law Review ; The Supreme Court’s Decision on Indirect Internet Copyright Liability Could Have Far-Reaching Effects

"On March 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision that will reshape not only how copyright law applies to the internet for years to come, but could impact other areas of intellectual property law as well. In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Court held that internet service providers cannot be held indirectly liable for their customers’ copyright infringement simply because the ISPs knew the infringement was happening but failed to prevent it. The decision reversed and remanded a billion-dollar judgment against ISP Cox Communications and drew a more clearly defined line around secondary copyright liability."

Supreme Court Agrees With EFF: ISPs Don't Have To Be Copyright Enforcers; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), March 26, 2026

 BETTY GEDLU , Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Supreme Court Agrees With EFF: ISPs Don't Have To Be Copyright Enforcers

"In Cox v. Sony, the Court reversed a Fourth Circuit decision that had upheld a billion-dollar verdict against internet provider Cox Communications. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas explained that contributory liability is limited to two situations: when a defendant actively induces infringement, or when it provides a product or service that it knows is tailored for infringement.

This framework closely tracks the approach EFF urged in our amicus brief. As we explained, courts should look to patent law for guidance in defining the boundaries of secondary copyright liability. Patent law recognizes liability where a defendant actively induces infringement, or distributes a product knowing that it lacks substantial non-infringing uses. The Court’s opinion adopts that same basic structure."

Supreme Court tosses $1B copyright verdict in record companies' battle over illegal internet downloads; Fox News, March 25, 2026

 Eric Mack, Fox News ; Supreme Court tosses $1B copyright verdict in record companies' battle over illegal internet downloads

"The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that internet providers are not liable for copyright infringement by their users, delivering an opinion in Cox v. Sony and tossing a $1 billion verdict."

Supreme Court Sides With Internet Provider in Copyright Fight Over Pirated Music; The New York Times, March 25, 2026

 Ann E. Marimow, The New York Times ; Supreme Court Sides With Internet Provider in Copyright Fight Over Pirated Music

Leading music labels sued Cox Communications for failing to terminate accounts of subscribers flagged for distributing copyrighted music.

"The Supreme Court unanimously said on Wednesday that a major internet provider could not be held liable for the piracy of thousands of songs online in a closely watched copyright clash."

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment; SCOTUSblog, March 25, 2026

 SCOTUSblog; Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment

"Holding: Internet service provider Cox Communications neither induced its users’ infringement of copyrighted works nor provided a service tailored to infringement, and accordingly Cox is not contributorily liable for the infringement of Sony’s copyrights.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on March 25, 2026. Justice Sotomayor wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Jackson."

A Long-Running AI Copyright Question Gets an Answer as Supreme Court Stays Mum; CNET, March 4, 2026

 Omar Gallaga, CNET ; A Long-Running AI Copyright Question Gets an Answer as Supreme Court Stays Mum

The man behind the AI-generated image in question reflects on what he calls a "philosophical milestone."

"A legal battle over AI copyright that has gone on for more than a decade may have reached its end, with the US Supreme Court declining to hear a case involving AI-generated visual art...

In an email to CNET, Thaler said that although the court declined to hear his appeal, "I see this moment as a philosophical milestone rather than a defeat."

While he's unsure if legal action will continue, Thaler says he's still certain that the law on copyright, as written, is intended to exclude nonhuman inventors.

"By bringing DABUS into the legal system, I confronted a question long confined to theory: whether invention and creativity must remain tied to humans or whether autonomous computational processes could genuinely originate ideas," Thaler said."

US Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material; Reuters, March 2, 2026

 Blake Brittain, Reuters; US Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material

"The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up the ​issue of whether art generated by artificial intelligence can be copyrighted under U.S. law, turning ‌away a case involving a computer scientist from Missouri who was denied a copyright for a piece of visual art made by his AI system.

Plaintiff Stephen Thaler had appealed to the justices after lower courts upheld a U.S. Copyright Office ​decision that the AI-crafted visual art at issue in the case was ineligible for copyright protection ​because it did not have a human creator."

Trump Demeans Himself as He Attacks the Supreme Court; Wall Street Journal, February 20, 2026

The Editorial Board , Wall Street Journal; Trump Demeans Himself as He Attacks the Supreme Court

He calls the Justices who ruled against him ‘very unpatriotic’ and ‘fools.’

"President Trump owes the Supreme Court an apology—to the individual Justices he smeared on Friday and the institution itself. Mr. Trump doubtless won’t offer one, but his rant in response to his tariff defeat at the Court was arguably the worst moment of his Presidency."

Supreme Court adopts automated recusal software to avoid ethics conflicts; CNN, February 17, 2026

Tierney Sneed, CNN; Supreme Court adopts automated recusal software to avoid ethics conflicts

"The Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will start using software to assist in justices’ decisions to recuse themselves from cases that present a potential conflict of interest.

A brief press release issued by the court described an electronic matching process already used by some lower courts to compare a case’s parties to lists judges assemble of individuals and organizations they have ties to. A 2023 code of conduct statement from the justices said they were considering adopting such a tool themselves.

“This software will be used to run automated recusal checks by comparing information about parties and attorneys in a case with lists created by each Justice’s chambers,” the press release said. “The system was designed and created by the Court’s Office of Information Technology in cooperation with the Court’s Legal Office and Clerk’s Office.”"

High Court Shouldn’t Weigh AI’s Copyright Author Status, US Says; Bloomberg Law, January 26, 2026

 

Kyle Jahner

, Bloomberg Law; High Court Shouldn’t Weigh AI’s Copyright Author Status, US Says

"The US Solicitor General advised the US Supreme Court not to take up a computer scientist’s petition to consider whether AI could be an author under copyright law.

A decision foreclosing nonhuman authorship for Stephen Thaler’s Creativity Machine didn’t conflict with any in other circuits or raise complicated questions about protections for artificial intelligence-assisted work by human authors, the Jan. 23 filing said."