I’m not so sure it ignores precedent, although it definitely extends it. I think Ginsberg in her dissent says it well that the issue follows from related precedent as such: “To explain why, I proceed from common ground. All agree that headnotes and syllabi for judicial opinions—both a kind of annotation—are copyrightable when created by a reporter of decisions, Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617, 645–650 (1888), but are not copyrightable when created by judges.” She goes on to say “In contrast, the role of the legislature encompasses the process of ‘making laws’- not construing statutes after their enactment.” and that, “The OCGA annotations, in my appraisal, do not rank as part of the Georgia Legislature’s lawmaking process for three reasons.”

Those in the majority instead say “If judges, acting as judges, cannot be ’authors’ because of their authority to make and interpret the law, it follows that legislators, acting as legislators, cannot be either.” They say this extends to the annotations as “That of course includes final legislation, but it also includes explanatory and proce- dural materials legislators create in the discharge of their legislative duties.”

Whether the majority is correct in their decision or not, I think this is definitely a reasonable clarification of past precedent. I think Justice Thomas’s dissent is accurate when it says that this was not as clear cut a confirmation as the Majority opinion’s writing makes it out to be, but I think saying the decision is incongruous with previous precedent is also incorrect.