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."

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 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."

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.”"

Supreme Court Will Not Hear Little v. Llano County; Library Journal, December 16, 2025

 Lisa Peet, Library Journal; Supreme Court Will Not Hear Little v. Llano County

 "THE LONG GAME

While this is a disheartening development for the plaintiffs, Dan Novack, VP and Associate General Counsel at PRH, feels that a favorable precedent could still be set at the Supreme Court level. PRH has several cases in play, including Penguin Random House LLC v. Robbins, challenging Iowa’s SF496 in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Penguin Random House LLC v. Gibson , fighting Florida’s HB 1069 in the Eleventh Circuit. Both are scheduled to be heard in early 2026.

Given that it only takes about one percent of the cases put forward to it every year, “when there is a traffic jam of cases, as there is in this emerging area of law, it’s really not uncommon for the Supreme Court to sit back and let it play out,” Novack told LJ. If the other cases are also decided against the freedom to read, the Supreme Court may not see the need to step in. But if rulings are split, it may choose to take on one of the cases.

If the Supreme Court had taken Little v. Llano, it could have resulted in a positive ruling coming sooner. But “I’m taking the longer view that it’s good to be presenting more options to the Court, and if they were to take a Penguin Random House case, I feel very strong about the merits of those cases,” said Novack.

Even Llano County’s attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, in his brief in opposition to the writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit ruling, stated that “The Court should wait and allow these [circuit] courts to weigh in on whether and how the Speech Clause applies to library-book removals before jumping in to resolve this issue.”

Novack acknowledges that this decision is a hard one for Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. “Something went very wrong in the Fifth Circuit,” he said. But PRH and its council are committed to a multi-year fight that could potentially reach the Supreme Court and set precedent for the right to read throughout the United States.

“Although our lawsuit has come to a disappointing end,” Leila Green Little, lead plaintiff in the case, told LJ, “I am encouraged by the many people across the country who continue our fight in the courtrooms, their local libraries, and our state and federal legislative chambers.”"

Court seems dubious of billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement; SCOTUSblog, December 2, 2025

Ronald Mann, SCOTUSblog; Court seems dubious of billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement

 "My basic reaction to the argument is that the justices would be uncomfortable with accepting the broadest version of the arguments that Cox has presented to it (that the ISP is protected absent an affirmative act of malfeasance), but Sony’s position seems so unpalatable to them that a majority is most unlikely to coalesce around anything that is not a firm rejection of the lower court’s ruling against Cox. I wouldn’t expect that ruling to come soon, but I don’t think there is much doubt about what it will say."

US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and record labels; Reuters, December 1, 2025

 Blake Brittain , Reuters; US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and record labels

"The U.S. Supreme Court grappled on Monday with a bid by Cox Communications to avoid financial liability in a major music copyright lawsuit by record labels that accused the internet service provider of enabling its customers to pirate thousands of songs.

The justices appeared skeptical of Cox's assertion that its mere awareness of user piracy could not justify holding it liable for copyright infringement. They also questioned whether holding Cox liable for failing to cut off infringers could impact a wide range of innocent internet users."

Cox Communications v. Sony Music Oral Argument; C-SPAN, December 1, 2025

 C-SPAN ; Cox Communications v. Sony Music Oral Argument

"The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, a case about Sony's lawsuit against internet service provider Cox Communications, and whether such companies may be held liable for their users' copyright infringements. Sony and other record companies and publishers sued Cox, alleging it was liable for its subscribers downloading and distributing copyrighted songs. A federal jury found Cox liable and awarded $1 billion in statutory damages. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury's finding of willful infringement but vacated the damages award. The Trump administration supported Cox in the dispute and, along with attorney Joshua Rosenkranz, argued on behalf of the company. Veteran Supreme Court attorney Paul Clement argued on behalf of the respondent, Sony Music."