Page:Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org SCOTUS slip opinion.pdf/36

Rh was even more essential in the 19th century before the proliferation of federal and state regulatory law fundamentally altered the role that common-law judging played in expounding upon the law. See also (, dissenting).

These differences provide crucial context for Banks’ reasoning. Specifically, to ensure that judicial “exposition and interpretation of the law” remains “free for publication to all,” the word “author” must be read to encompass all judicial duties. Banks, 128 U. S., at 253. But these differences also demonstrate that the same rule does not a fortiori apply to all legislative duties.

In addition to being flawed as a textual and precedential