Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—D.D.C.: Court refuses to immediately reinstate fired Register of Copyrights, (Aug 5, 2025)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The former head of the Copyright Office will have to await a decision on the merits of her lawsuit.

A former government official who headed the U.S. Copyright Office before her abrupt firing two months ago will have to remain on the sidelines until the merits of her unlawful termination lawsuit are decided, the federal court for Washington, D.C., has held. The court, in denying the former official’s request to be immediately reinstated while the case was pending, emphasized that she did not face a risk of irreparable harm because her Copyright Office post would still be available if and when she prevailed in the case (Perlmutter v. Blanche, No. 1:25-cv-01659-TJK (D.D.C. July 30, 2025)).

The lawsuit was brought by Shira Perlmutter, the former head of the Copyright Office who also served as the Register of Copyrights. In early May, President Trump summarily removed the head of the Library of Congress, Carla Hayden, and two days later removed Perlmutter. The abrupt firing came just as the Copyright Office was preparing to release a potentially groundbreaking new study that case a critical eye on the application of fair use principles to the use of copyrighted materials by artificial intelligence technologies. Many observers in the copyright community saw the firing as an attempt to squelch the report, although the linkage has not been proven.

Perlmutter contended in her lawsuit that her firing was unlawful and sought a declaration that she continued to remain in her post as the head of the Copyright Office and Register of Copyrights. In late May, the court denied her motion for a temporary restraining order, concluding that she had not shown that she would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of such relief. Perlmutter then moved for a preliminary injunction, leading to this opinion.

Injunctive relief. The court denied the request for injunctive relief. In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the court noted, Perlmutter needed to establish that she was likely to succeed on the merits, that she was likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tipped in her favor, and that an injunction was in the public interest. Critically, the court noted, the failure to show a likelihood of irreparable harm is, “standing alone, sufficient to defeat the motion.” Because Perlmutter failed in this case to show irreparable harm, the court noted, it was not necessary to even evaluate the other factors. Rather, the court noted, its analysis would “begin[] and endp[ with irreparable harm.”

The fundamental flaw in Perlmutter’s irreparable injury claim, the court emphasized, was that her Copyright Office post would continue to be waiting for her if she prevailed in her lawsuit. In the landmark case of Berry v. Reagan, 1983 WL 538 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 1983), President Reagan fired three officials of the Commission on Civil Rights. Because the firing of those officials deprived the Commission of a quorum, the Commission lost its ability to issue a final report before its mandate expired. But that case—and later cases like it—was not applicable here, the court found. While it was true that the termination impeded Perlmutter herself from carrying out her duties as head of the Copyright Office, the court noted, “she does not explain why the Copyright Office cannot continue to operate” under the leadership imposed in her absence. “Perlmutter has not shown that the Copyright Office will grind to a halt without her,” the court pithily noted.

Nor was there any other reason to grant Perlmutter the relief she sought, the court found. Perlmutter argued that if she did not promptly regain her post, she would lose the ability to participate in the completion of the Office’s artificial intelligence report. But this “lost time” argument, the court noted, “proves too much because it would establish irreparable harm in every wrongful-termination case.” Perlmutter also argued that even if the Office were able to continue to operate in her absence, it would suffer “institutional harm” because it would function less effectively without her at the helm. “But injuries to third parties are not a basis to find irreparable harm,” the court observed. “So institutional harms to the Library or the Copyright Office, divorced from how those harms impact Perlmutter personally, cannot help her meet her burden.” The motion would be denied.

Artificial intelligence report. Perhaps strikingly, although Perlmutter’s termination came as the Copyright Office was finalizing its study on artificial intelligence and fair use, it did not prevent the Office from expressing its views on the matter. In a highly unusual “pre-publication” release, posted to the internet just before Perlmutter’s termination, the Office emphasized that a generative AI model should not be considered fair use if it was used to “occupy the same space” as its training works and could therefore dilute the market for those works—a view of fair use that was far narrower AI industry participants would have wanted. The Office’s view of fair use, as IP Law Daily has reported, appears to have been adopted already by at least one prominent federal court.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-01659-TJK.

Judge: Kelly, T.

Attorneys: Donald Beaton Verrilli (Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP) for Shira Perlmutter. Christopher R. Hall, U.S. Department of Justice, for Todd Blanche.

Cases: RemediesDamages Discharge PublicEmployees DistrictofColumbiaNews