Will the Supreme Court hear a case about AI and copyright law before 2027?

- [2026-03-02] The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter (No. 25-449). The petition asked whether AI-only works can be copyrighted. This was the only AI-copyright cert petition I found, and it was denied rather than granted. https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/03/02/supreme-court-denies-thalers-latest-attempt-register-copyright-ai-generated-image/ - [2026-01-23] The DOJ/Solicitor General opposed cert in Thaler. It called the case a poor vehicle because Thaler disclaimed any human contribution. The Court followed that position. https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/01/28/doj-urges-supreme-court-deny-cert-thalers-latest-bid-copyright-work-created-ai/ - [2026-03-16] Commentary after the denial says the human-authorship rule stands. The question of how much human input is enough for AI-assisted works remains open and unaddressed by the Court. https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/supreme-court-denies-review-in-ai-authorship-case - [2026-09-29] The Third Circuit decided Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence. It affirmed that ROSS's use of Westlaw headnotes to train a non-generative AI tool was not fair use. It was the first federal appellate ruling on AI-training fair use. Ballard Spahr (2026-10-02) says it does not decide generative-AI training. https://www.ballardspahr.com/insights/alerts-and-articles/2026/10/third-circuit-addresses-fair-use-in-ai-training-but-leaves-generative-ai-questions-unresolved - [2026-10-01] Tech Times says the Third Circuit ruling is non-binding on the Ninth Circuit, where the Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta cases arose. https://www.techtimes.com/articles/328380/20261001/ai-training-fair-use-loses-first-appellate-test-generative-ai-gets-explicit-carve-out.htm - [2026-10-12] Timing for ROSS: the decision is about two weeks old. A rehearing petition is due within 14 days of judgment, and a cert petition within 90 days (or after a rehearing denial). So a cert petition could not realistically be filed, briefed, conferenced and granted before Jan 1, 2027 unless the Court expedites. I found no report of any such filing. - [2025-06-23] The Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta rulings were district-court rulings from N.D. Cal. They are not at the Supreme Court. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922 - [2026] The Berkeley BCLT 2025–26 year-in-review lists Thaler (cert denied March 2026) as the Supreme Court's AI-copyright action. It does not list any pending cert-stage AI-copyright case. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/bclt/bclt-legal-analysis/internet-computer-law-s1/ BOTTOM LINE: As of 2026-10-12 I found no AI-copyright case pending at the Supreme Court. The one petition, Thaler, was denied on 2026-03-02. The only appellate AI fair-use ruling (Third Circuit, ROSS, 2026-09-29) is too fresh to reach a cert grant before Jan 1, 2027 on a normal schedule. Generative-AI cases are still at the district or circuit stage. NOT FOUND: Any pending AI-copyright cert petition. Any rehearing or cert filing in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS. Any scheduled Supreme Court conference on an AI-copyright case before 2027. The search tool hit a call limit, so the ROSS follow-up search did not run. The Supreme Court docket pages were not checked directly.

- [2026-03-02] The Supreme Court denied cert in Thaler v. Perlmutter (No. 25-449), the only AI-copyright petition I found that reached the Court. Timeline from the docket: petition filed 2025-10-09, response requested 2025-11-26, government opposition filed 2026-01-23, reply 2026-02-09, denied 2026-03-02. That is about 4.8 months from filing to denial, even for a case denied without a grant. The Solicitor General opposed review. https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/thaler-v-perlmutter - [2026-01-28] The DOJ argued that Thaler was a narrow, poor vehicle because Thaler disclaimed any human creative contribution. The Court followed that advice. https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/01/28/doj-urges-supreme-court-deny-cert-thalers-latest-bid-copyright-work-created-ai/ - [2026-09-29] The Third Circuit affirmed Thomson Reuters v. ROSS (No. 25-2153). This was the first federal appellate ruling on fair use in AI training. The court held that ROSS's use was not fair use. It came on interlocutory appeal, and the district court has not yet resolved damages or some remaining claims. https://www.jw.com/news/insights-ai-copyright-fair-use-case/ and https://patentlyo.com/patent/2026/10/ease-is-not-necessity-third-circuit-affirms-no-fair-use-in-thomson-reuters-v-ross.html - [2026-09-29] The Third Circuit's judgment notice gives 14 days to petition for rehearing, or 45 days if the US is a party. It refers parties to the Supreme Court rules on cert timing. https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Thomson-Reuters-Enterprise-Centre-GmbH-et-al-v.-Ross-Intelligence-Inc-Entry-BL-207.pdf - [2026-10-04] Reports say ROSS has said it will seek Supreme Court review. The commentator Aaron Moss doubts this is a good vehicle: it was interlocutory, damages are unresolved, ROSS is defunct, and its AI was not generative. He says cleaner generative-AI cases are coming up in the lower courts. I did not find a filed rehearing petition or cert petition. https://copyrightlately.com/thomson-reuters-v-ross-fair-use-generative-ai/ - [2026-10-04] Generative-AI cases are still at the district-court stage. Summary-judgment argument in Concord v. Anthropic is set for Oct 21, 2026. Briefing in In re OpenAI finishes in November 2026. The DOJ filed a statement of interest on 2026-09-01 saying LLM training is "exceedingly transformative." There are no pending appellate rulings in these cases, so no cert-stage vehicle exists beyond ROSS. https://copyrightlately.com/thomson-reuters-v-ross-fair-use-generative-ai/ - [Timing arithmetic, my inference from the Supreme Court's published process] If ROSS skips rehearing, its cert deadline is 90 days after 2026-09-29, about Dec 28, 2026. A rehearing petition would push that later. The respondent normally has 30 days to respond, and then the petition is distributed for a conference. Thaler took about 5 months from filing to denial. A grant before Jan 1, 2027 would require a very fast petition, a waiver or expedited response, and a quick conference. That is highly unusual. - [Base rate] Cert grants are rare, roughly 1% of paid petitions, and lower for interlocutory posture. In this reference class, the one AI-copyright petition that reached the Court was denied. I did not find a source quantifying the grant rate for 2026, so this figure comes from my background knowledge. The Court denied Thaler despite amicus support urging review. https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/03/02/supreme-court-denies-thalers-latest-attempt-register-copyright-ai-generated-image/ - [2026-10-12] Resolution risk: the market says "grants a writ of certiorari to a case about AI and copyright law." A broader reading could cover a tangential case, such as an AI-related copyright question inside another dispute. I found no such pending petition. The Court's 2025–26 copyright case was Cox v. Sony (DMCA/ISP), which is not about AI. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/bclt/bclt-legal-analysis/internet-computer-law-s1/ BOTTOM LINE: Historically, the only AI-copyright petition to reach the Court (Thaler) was denied after about 5 months, and the one live candidate (ROSS) is only about two weeks past an interlocutory Third Circuit ruling. The procedural calendar makes a grant before 2027 very unlikely, and the base rate for cert grants is low. Generative-AI cases are still in district court. NOT FOUND: A filed ROSS rehearing or cert petition; any other pending AI-copyright cert petition; any published expert probability estimates for a SCOTUS grant by 2027; the market's own odds (deliberately not searched).

YES means: The Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari, before Jan 1, 2027, in a case about AI and copyright law. The strongest YES case is weak on timing. Only one path is live, and it needs the Court to move unusually fast. - [2026-10-02] ROSS's counsel (White & Case's Yar Chaikovsky) publicly committed to seeking Supreme Court review of the Sept 29 Third Circuit ruling. His stated aim is "much-needed clarity" on AI-training copyright law. The statement was confirmed on a fetched page. This is the only declared intent to petition that I found. It is not a filed petition. https://www.lawnext.com/2026/10/ross-says-it-will-ask-supreme-court-to-review-3rd-circuit-ruling-for-thomson-reuters-in-copyright-case.html - [2026-09-29] The Third Circuit opinion frames the case as "no more than an ordinary copyright case." It addresses both originality of the headnotes and fair use. Two questions of pure law give a petitioner a clean cert framing, and ROSS itself called them pure questions of law when it sought interlocutory appeal in 2025. The Court denied Thaler partly over vehicle problems (Thaler disclaimed any human contribution). This case has no comparable disclaimer. https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/252153p.pdf - [2026-10-12] Single most likely path to YES: 1. ROSS skips rehearing and files a cert petition within weeks, probably by early or mid-November. 2. Thomson Reuters waives its response or answers quickly. Alternatively the Court calls for a response and the petition is distributed fast. 3. The Court grants at a December conference, with the grant on an order list before Dec 31. Each step is possible. I found no evidence any step has happened. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx - [2026-10-12] Mechanism that helps YES: the Court's calendar runs through December. Its weekly conferences are held on Fridays during and preceding argument weeks, and it reviews about 130 petitions per week. A petition filed in early November with a waiver could be distributed for a December conference. Grants also come in January, but those fall after the window. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx - [2026-10-12] Pressure for review: ROSS says the Third Circuit ruling leaves "continued uncertainty" over AI training. It is the first federal appellate ruling on AI-training fair use, which is the kind of question the Court usually waits for a split to address. Thaler's lawyer Ryan Abbott said in March that the Court "generally wait[s] for circuit splits." No split exists yet. A split would need a Ninth Circuit ruling in Bartz or Kadrey, and I found none pending. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/supreme-court-declines-ai-copyright-210345497.html - [2026-08-16] Allen v. Perlmutter, the Midjourney authorship case, finished summary-judgment briefing in D. Colo. As of Aug 12 it had no merits decision. It is a district-court case with no appellate ruling, so it cannot reach cert in 2026. Abbott called it the likely next vehicle for the human-authorship question. https://rottenwifi.com/artist-appeals-copyright-denial-for-prize-winning-ai-generated-work-what-allen-v-perlmutter-could-decide/ - [2026-03-02] Thaler shows the Court was willing to take the AI-copyright question seriously enough to request a government response. Amici urged a grant, and commentators read the denial as "for now." That supports a later grant but not one before 2027. https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/03/02/supreme-court-denies-thalers-latest-attempt-register-copyright-ai-generated-image/ - [2026-10-12] Resolution wording favors YES slightly. The rule says only "a case about AI and copyright law." It does not require a generative-AI case or a final judgment. A grant in ROSS, a non-generative AI training case, would count. A grant in any tangential case involving AI and copyright might arguably count too. I found no such pending petition. BOTTOM LINE: The only credible YES path is ROSS filing a fast cert petition and the Court granting at a December conference. That is a compressed schedule, and ROSS's interlocutory posture and non-generative AI make it a contested vehicle. I found nothing showing it has begun. NOT FOUND: A filed ROSS cert petition or rehearing petition. A Supreme Court docket number for ROSS. Any scheduled conference on an AI-copyright petition before 2027. Any other pending AI-copyright cert petition. Any Ninth Circuit ruling creating a split. The web search tool hit its call limit, so I could not run further searches or check the Supreme Court docket directly.

YES means: the Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari, before Jan 1, 2027, in a case about AI and copyright law. - [2026-10-02] ROSS has announced only an intent to seek review. A statement from its counsel at White & Case said "We intend to seek review". The announcement is not a filing. It came with a Third Circuit judgment dated 2026-09-29, so no petition was before the Court as of the sources I read. Commentary at chatgptiseatingtheworld expects the Court may call for the Solicitor General's views (a CVSG), because the DOJ did not file in ROSS. https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/10/02/ross-intelligence-to-seek-supreme-court-review-of-third-circuits-decision-rejecting-fair-use-all-eyes-will-be-on-sgs-position/ - [2026-10-02] A CVSG would be the main bar to a 2026 grant. The Solicitor General in Thaler filed about 8 weeks after the call for a response (2025-11-26 to 2026-01-23, per the base-rate report). A CVSG usually takes much longer, because the SG's invited briefs typically arrive in the next briefing cycle. A DOJ position in ROSS is also uncertain: the DOJ's 2026-09-01 statement in In re OpenAI was favorable to AI training, and the Third Circuit opinion distinguished it. Same source as above. - [2026-09-25] The Court had granted only one IP case for the October 2026 term so far: RiseandShine v. PepsiCo, a trademark case. Wolters Kluwer's IP docket preview lists no AI-copyright case among the grants. The preview was paywalled, so I could only read the summary. https://www.vitallaw.com/news/vital-briefing-supreme-court-s-ip-docket-for-october-2026-term-previewed/ipm01cf02e492233f4744bf8ee1cac51e5edb - [2026-09-21] The Patently-O preview of the long conference (Sept 28) counted 13 patent petitions. It did not mention any AI-copyright petition. It said most petitions were awaiting responses. The long conference and the Oct 5 order list are past, so no AI-copyright petition was among those considered. https://patentlyo.com/patent/2026/09/patent-docket-heading-into-the-supreme-courts-long-conference.html - [2026-09-13 approx., per ABA article dated 2026-09] An ABA Business Law Today piece published in September 2026 said district court proceedings in ROSS "remain stayed" pending the appeal. The case is therefore still interlocutory. The Court routinely denies petitions from non-final judgments, and the interlocutory posture has been cited as a reason to wait. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2026-september/thomson-reuters-v-ross-one-year-later/ - [2026-09-30] The Third Circuit's own opinion said its holding does not reach generative AI, per the chatgptiseatingtheworld summary, which quotes the footnote distinguishing the DOJ's Bartz-based argument. A narrow holding on non-generative AI weakens any circuit-split argument. No other circuit has ruled, so no split exists. https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2026/10/02/ross-intelligence-to-seek-supreme-court-review-of-third-circuits-decision-rejecting-fair-use-all-eyes-will-be-on-sgs-position/ - [2026-03-02] Thaler is the precedent for a denial. The Court denied Thaler even though amici supported review and the question was a clean pure-law question with a final judgment below. The Court followed the SG's recommendation to deny. https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/03/02/supreme-court-denies-thalers-latest-attempt-register-copyright-ai-generated-image/ - [2026-03-06] The denial is a docket line, not a ruling, per Guadamuz at TechnoLlama. That matters for resolution: only a grant would count, and a denial does not. https://www.technollama.co.uk/no-the-us-supreme-court-did-not-declare-that-ai-works-cannot-be-copyrighted - [Calendar arithmetic, my inference] Late-December and early-January conferences are the realistic last chances for a grant before 2027. Under the Court's rules, a petition filed in mid-October would get a 30-day response, which can be extended or waived. The Court usually distributes a petition about 14 days after the brief in opposition. A petition filed after Oct 12 would likely be considered in December or January. If a CVSG occurs, the grant date moves to 2027 or later. I did not confirm the Court's current conference calendar. - [2026-10-12] Resolution-wording risk is small. The rule says "grants a writ of certiorari" and requires a "case about AI and copyright law". An announced intent, a filed petition, an extension request, a CVSG, or a distribution for conference does not count. Only a grant counts. A grant in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS would likely count, because the case concerns AI training and copyright. - [2026-10-12] The generative-AI cases that could be better vehicles are all below appellate level. Bartz and Kadrey were N.D. Cal. rulings from June 2025 (per the CRS note in the earlier reports). Appeals decisions in them would not arrive in time for a grant before 2027. BOTTOM LINE: For a Yes, ROSS would need to file within weeks, the SG would need to waive or skip a CVSG, and the Court would need to grant before year-end. It would also have to do this on an interlocutory, non-generative, no-split record, and no such petition has been reported filed. The status quo is no grant, and the only live candidate cannot move fast enough under the Court's ordinary process. NOT FOUND: A filed ROSS petition, rehearing petition or extension application. A Supreme Court docket number for ROSS. Any CVSG in an AI-copyright case. Any other AI-copyright petition pending as of 2026-10-12. I did not read the Supreme Court docket directly.