Supreme Court affirms Fifth Circuit worldwide copyright termination judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2109 for lack of a quorum

The Supreme Court order

The October 19, 2026 order list (610 U.S.) includes BMG Rights Management, et al. v. Vetter, Cyril E., et al., No. 25-1391. The order states: "Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. §1, and since the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances 'the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.' Justice Sotomayor, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Barrett, and Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition." The docket records the same text as its October 19, 2026 entry. (Order List 1 to 2; Docket.)

The docket captions the petitioners as BMG Rights Management (US) LLC, et al., and the respondents as Cyril E. Vetter, et al. The petition was filed June 11, 2026 and docketed June 16, 2026. Respondents filed a brief in opposition on September 14, 2026, petitioners filed a reply on September 30, 2026, and the petition was distributed for the Conference of October 16, 2026. The docket lists the lower court as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 25-30108, decided January 12, 2026. (Docket.)

The Fifth Circuit judgment affirmed

In Vetter v. Resnik, No. 25-30108 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2026), Judges Smith, Stewart, and Ramirez heard the appeal from the Middle District of Louisiana, No. 3:23-CV-1369. Judge Stewart wrote the opinion. The appellees were Cyril E. Vetter and Vetter Communications Corporation. The appellants were Robert Resnik and Resnik Music Group. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in full. (Op. 1 to 2, 28.)

According to the opinion, Vetter and a co-writer wrote "Double Shot (Of My Baby's Love)" in 1962 and, in 1963, assigned one hundred percent of their copyright interests to a music publisher in an assignment that included a transfer of the exclusive rights to the song throughout the world for the full term of copyright protection. In 1996, after the co-writer's death, Vetter Communications Corporation purchased the renewal rights held by the co-writer's heirs. In March 2019, Vetter sent a notice of termination under 17 U.S.C. 304(c), terminating the 1963 grant as of May 3, 2022. The Vetter plaintiffs sued in the Middle District of Louisiana on September 27, 2023. The district court granted them summary judgment and declared Vetter the sole owner of the song's copyright throughout the world in his recaptured interest, and Vetter Communications Corporation the sole owner throughout the world in the renewal interest it purchased. (Op. 1 to 5.)

What the Fifth Circuit held on termination and renewal

On the recaptured interest, the Fifth Circuit addressed 17 U.S.C. 304(c)(6)(E), which provides that "[t]ermination of a grant under this subsection affects only those rights covered by the grant that arise under this title, and in no way affects rights arising under any other Federal, State, or foreign laws." The court wrote that "[t]he district court correctly determined that Vetter is the sole owner of Double Shot's copyright throughout the world in Vetter's Recaptured Copyright Interest," and that the holding "is supported by statutory text and context as well as statutory purpose." It held that the district court did not err in declining to follow an out-of-circuit district court decision and the treatises it relied on, and wrote that the case law the appellants cited for a domestic-only reading of termination provides weak support for their argument and that it declined to follow it. (Op. 6 to 7, 13 to 16, 20 to 21; 17 U.S.C. 304(c)(6)(E).)

On the renewal interest, the court held that the district court "did not err by holding that Vetter Communications Corporation is the sole owner of Double Shot's copyright throughout the world in VCC's Renewal Copyright Interest," saying that holding "is supported by statutory text and purpose." "For the foregoing reasons," the court affirmed the district court's judgment in full. (Op. 28.)