Trump’s Copyright Power Grab Sparks Constitutional Showdown
Supreme Court May Decide Whether Congress Still Controls Copyright Law

A high-stakes legal battle is unfolding over the future of U.S. copyright protections—one that could determine whether creators retain the rights to their own work or whether those rights are seized by executive power. President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove Shira Perlmutter, the Register of Copyrights, has ignited a constitutional crisis now advancing toward the Supreme Court. For artists, authors, musicians, and filmmakers, the stakes are not theoretical—they are existential.

Perlmutter was dismissed just weeks after releasing a report that questioned the legality of AI models trained on copyrighted content. Her removal, alongside the firing of Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, has alarmed lawmakers and creators alike. “President Donald Trump’s attempt to install his own officials at the Library of Congress has raised alarm over the erosion of legislative independence,” one report noted. Although Trump’s appointees were blocked from entering the Copyright Office, the legal battle is far from over. The Supreme Court has requested a response from Perlmutter by November 10, signaling that it may take up the case.

This is not merely a dispute over personnel—it is a pivotal moment for the American promise that creators have the right to own and protect their ideas. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress—not the President—the authority to regulate copyright. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 states: “The Congress shall have Power… To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing… to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their… Writings and Discoveries.” Congress established the Copyright Office and the Library of Congress to fulfill this mandate. The Register of Copyrights is appointed by the Librarian of Congress, a legislative officer—not by the President. Her role is to advise Congress, not to execute executive directives.

Trump’s effort to fire the Register and install loyalists is not just legally dubious—it is a calculated attempt to seize control of copyright law itself. If successful, it would allow the President to dictate how, when, and whether creators are protected. The very agency designed to defend authors could be repurposed to exploit them.

The Supreme Court’s decision may hinge on originalist interpretation—a judicial philosophy that seeks to apply the Constitution as it was understood at the time of its drafting. The Court’s conservative majority includes several self-identified originalists: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. These justices often emphasize strict adherence to the Constitution’s text and the Founders’ intent.

If the Court applies a strict originalist lens, it will likely find Trump’s actions unconstitutional. The Register is a legislative officer, and her removal violates the separation of powers. However, if the Court reinterprets the Register’s role as executive—based on her regulatory and international functions—it could hand Trump a sweeping victory and shift copyright authority to the White House. “If copyright becomes an executive function,” warned constitutional scholar Maya Chen, “Congress loses its grip on one of the most vital tools for protecting American creativity.”

The stakes could not be higher. If Trump prevails, the President would gain control over copyright policy—undermining Congress’s constitutional role. Without legislative oversight, copyright law could be weakened or rewritten by executive appointees. The case could set a dangerous precedent for presidential control over other legislative agencies. “This is no longer about legal technicalities,” said one House staffer. “It’s about who controls the future of creativity in America.”

Yet this moment also presents an opportunity—a chance to reaffirm what makes American creativity so powerful: the belief that ideas matter, that voices deserve protection, and that no one—not even a President—can erase the rights of those who create. The right to own your work, to protect your voice, and to be compensated fairly is not a privilege—it is a cornerstone of artistic freedom. If those rights are stripped away by executive decree, the consequences will ripple through every industry, every community, and every generation of artists to come.

Trump’s actions are not isolated—they reflect a broader pattern of institutional takeover. But history has shown that when creators, lawmakers, and citizens stand together, they can defend the foundations of democracy and the dignity of expression. If the Supreme Court chooses to uphold the Constitution’s original meaning, it will not merely protect a single office—it will safeguard the future of American innovation, imagination, and independence.

---

References

• U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
• Trump asks Supreme Court to let him fire Copyright Office chief – Courthouse News Service
• Trump’s Copyright Purge and the Separation of Powers – Lawfare
• The Role of the Register of Copyrights – U.S. Copyright Office
• Originalism and the Supreme Court – National Constitution Center