You're probably referencing the Georgia situation,[0] and it's complicated. The actual text of the laws are public, but there exists a (previously; see below) c

You're probably referencing the Georgia situation,[0] and it's complicated. The actual text of the laws are public, but there exists a (previously; see below) copyrighted annotated version published by a private company and "merged" into the "master" law. Courts would reference this annotated version, but because it was copyrighted, one could not republish it in its entirety, only in ways that followed fair use. On the surface, the concept of copyrighted laws sounds ridiculous. After all, works of the government are not copyrightable, so why should the law be? However, Georgia's idea was essentially: because it was done by a private company, the copyright was enforceable. In 2013, Public.Resource.Org challenged this concept by publishing the text in its entirety, and was subsequently sued by Georgia in 2015. The Northern District of Georgia ruled in favor of Georgia in 2017. After an appeal to the 11th Circuit, in 2018, it was overturned in favor of Public.Resource.Org. In 2020,[1] the Supreme Court sided with the 11th Circuit, ending the debacle. The ruling held that "works that lack the force of law, such as the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated" are uncopyrightable. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Code_of_Georgia_Annotated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Code_of_Georgia_Annot... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Public.Resource.Org,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Public.Resource.Org....