not the works themselves carry the force of law. See id. at 1504, 1506. The Supreme Court based its rule in significant part on a construction of the term “author,” noting that judges and legislators could not be considered authors entitled to copyright in their official works because those officials were “vested with the authority to make and interpret the law.” Id. at 1507. As a corollary to its author-focused rule, the Supreme Court added that the Government Edicts rule “does not apply, however, to works created by … private parties[] who lack the authority to make or interpret the law.” Id. at 1507.
Because ICC is a private party that lacks the authority to make or interpret the law, the Government Edicts doctrine is clearly not dispositive of this case. But the doctrine provides significant guidance that this Court must keep in mind when addressing the parties’ arguments regarding the I-Codes as Adopted. Most importantly, the Supreme Court noted that “[t]he animating principle behind [the Government Edicts rule] is that no one can own the law. Every citizen is presumed to know the law, and it needs no argument to show … that all should have free access to its contents.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because no one can own or restrict access
23
