InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., et al. v. Nation Enterprises et al.

The Court held that The Nation's quoting and summarizing of President Ford's forthcoming memoir was not fair use, rejecting its public-interest argument because the right of first publication was important enough to favor Harper & Row.· AI-written

471 U.S. 539 · No. 83-1632 · 1984 term · Burger Court

Decided May 20, 1985 · argued Nov 6, 1984

Economic activity · Patents and copyrights: copyright

Landmark · Copyright/Patents

Majority opinion: Sandra O'Connor

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Reversed and remanded. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., et al. won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which public interest in learning about a historical figure's impressions of a historic event was held not to be sufficient to show fair use of material otherwise protected by copyright. Defendant, The Nation, had summarized and quoted substantially from A Time to Heal, President Gerald Ford's forthcoming memoir of his decision to pardon former president Richard Nixon. When Harper & Row, who held the rights to A Time to Heal, brought suit, The Nation asserted that its use of the book was protected under the doctrine of fair use, because of the great public interest in a historical figure's account of a historic incident. The Court rejected this argument holding that the right of first publication was important enough to find in favor of Harper.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1984 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianMarshallBrennanStevensBlackmunPowellWhiteO'ConnorBurgerRehnquist

Majority(6)

Dissent(3)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., et al.Publisher, publishing company
Respondent
Nation Enterprises et al.Magazine
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
17 U.S.C. § 107
Kind of law
Infrequently litigated statutes
Decided by
Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. May 20, 1985DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: reversed and remanded. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., et al. won.
  2. Nov 6, 1984ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: reversed, with a dissent.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

36 other argued cases since 1946 on patents and copyrights: copyright, newest first.

  1. Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entm't607 U.S. 583Mar 25, 2026 · 607 U.S. 583Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  2. Warner Chappell Music v. Neal601 U.S. 366May 9, 2024 · 601 U.S. 366Economic activity6–36–3 band

  3. Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith598 U.S. 508May 18, 2023 · 598 U.S. 508Economic activity7–27–2 band

  4. Unicolors, Inc v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP145 S. Ct. 941Feb 24, 2022 · 145 S. Ct. 941Economic activity6–36–3 band

  5. Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc.Landmark141 S. Ct. 1163Apr 5, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1163Economic activity6–27–2 band

  6. Georgia v. Public.resource.org Inc.140 S. Ct. 1498Apr 27, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1498Economic activity5–45–4 band

  7. Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.139 S. Ct. 873Mar 4, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 873Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  8. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com139 S. Ct. 881Mar 4, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 881Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  9. Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.137 S. Ct. 1002Mar 22, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1002Economic activity6–27–2 band

  10. American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc.573 U.S. 431Jun 25, 2014 · 573 U.S. 431Economic activity6–36–3 band

  11. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.572 U.S. 663May 19, 2014 · 572 U.S. 663Economic activity6–36–3 band

  12. Supap Kirtsaeng, dba Bluechristine99, Petitioner v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.568 U.S. 519Mar 19, 2013 · 568 U.S. 519Economic activity6–36–3 band

  13. Lawrence Golan, et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.565 U.S. 302Jan 18, 2012 · 565 U.S. 302Economic activity6–27–2 band

  14. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Petitioner v. Omega, S.A.562 U.S. 40Dec 13, 2010 · 562 U.S. 40Economic activity4–45–4 band

  15. Reed Elsevier, Inc., et al., v. Irvin Muchnick et al.559 U.S. 154Mar 2, 2010 · 559 U.S. 154Economic activity8–0Unanimous band

  16. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.545 U.S. 913Jun 27, 2005 · 545 U.S. 913Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  17. Eric Eldred, et al. v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General537 U.S. 186Jan 15, 2003 · 537 U.S. 186Economic activity7–27–2 band

  18. New York Times Company, Inc., et al. v. Jonathan Tasini, et al.533 U.S. 483Jun 25, 2001 · 533 U.S. 483Economic activity7–27–2 band

  19. Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.Landmark532 U.S. 23Mar 20, 2001 · 532 U.S. 23Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  20. C. Elvin Feltner, Jr. v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.523 U.S. 340Mar 31, 1998 · 523 U.S. 340Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  21. Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anza Research International, Inc.523 U.S. 135Mar 9, 1998 · 523 U.S. 135Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  22. Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc.516 U.S. 233Jan 16, 1996 · 516 U.S. 233Economic activity4–45–4 band

  23. Luther R. Campbell aka Luke Skyywalker, et al. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.Landmark · Copyright/Patents510 U.S. 569Mar 7, 1994 · 510 U.S. 569Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  24. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc.Landmark · Copyright/Patents499 U.S. 340Mar 27, 1991 · 499 U.S. 340Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  25. Stewart et al. v. Abend, dba Authors Research Co.495 U.S. 207Apr 24, 1990 · 495 U.S. 207Economic activity6–36–3 band

  26. Community for Creative Non-Violence et al. v. Reid490 U.S. 730Jun 5, 1989 · 490 U.S. 730Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  27. Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder et al.469 U.S. 153Jan 8, 1985 · 469 U.S. 153Economic activity5–45–4 band

  28. Sony Corporation of America et al. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., et al.Landmark · Copyright/Patents464 U.S. 417Jan 17, 1984 · 464 U.S. 417Economic activity5–45–4 band
  29. Twentieth Century Music Corp. et al. v. Aiken422 U.S. 151Jun 17, 1975 · 422 U.S. 151Economic activity7–27–2 band

  30. Teleprompter Corp. et al. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., et al.415 U.S. 394Mar 4, 1974 · 415 U.S. 394Economic activity6–36–3 band
  31. Goldstein et al. v. California412 U.S. 546Jun 18, 1973 · 412 U.S. 546Economic activity5–45–4 band

  32. Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.392 U.S. 390Jun 17, 1968 · 392 U.S. 390Economic activity5–18–1 band

  33. Public Affairs Associates, Inc., Trading As Public Affairs Press, v. Rickover369 U.S. 111Mar 5, 1962 · 369 U.S. 111Economic activity6–36–3 band
  34. Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc.362 U.S. 373Apr 18, 1960 · 362 U.S. 373Economic activity5–45–4 band

  35. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., et al. v. Loew's Inc. et al.356 U.S. 43Mar 17, 1958 · 356 U.S. 43Economic activity4–45–4 band
  36. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc.344 U.S. 228Dec 22, 1952 · 344 U.S. 228Economic activity7–27–2 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.