Perlmutter v. Blanche Back-and-Forth Continues — Summary Judgement Schedule to Run Into November

Another day, another round of back-and-forth in the Perlmutter v. Blanche lawsuit, where dueling summary judgement motions are taking center stage.

Both sides just recently filed a proposed schedule for that summary judgement sub-dispute, and the presiding judge signed off on the timetable soon thereafter. Taking a step back for a moment, a reinstatement-minded Perlmutter is technically spearheading two cases: A core complaint challenging her USCO dismissal and an appeal.

The latter, we reported last week, revolves around the court’s rejection of a sought preliminary injunction. This injunction would have enabled Perlmutter to resume leading the Copyright Office; she’s now pursuing a similar-but-distinct emergency injunction pending appeal, with the government’s opposition due by tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the involved parties are also positioned to push for summary judgement in the central case.

Enter the aforementioned schedule, which will see Team Perlmutter submit a summary judgement motion by September 8th. From there, the defendants will have until September 22nd to offer a retort as well as their own summary judgement motion.

Then, Perlmutter will by October 6th oppose the Trump administration’s motion and provide a reply in support of her stab at summary judgement, the docket shows. Rounding out the schedule is an October 14th cutoff for the defendants’ reply, with a hearing now teed up for November 4th.

Finally, the defendants’ answer to the main complaint has been stayed “until 14 days after the cross-motions for summary judgment are resolved, if necessary.”

Long story short: The odds of an imminent resolution still appear tall, and it’ll be worth continuing to monitor the high-stakes clash moving forward.

To reiterate an important – but easily overlooked – point, the increasingly convoluted courtroom confrontation is significant from the perspective of, among other things, federal policy at the intersection of AI and IP.

But at present, the (acting) Copyright Office officials, who evidence suggests aren’t Big Tech proponents, have yet to make any major maneuvers on this front.

To be sure, letting Perlmutter’s emergency injunction motion take the wheel for a moment, “[acting Librarian of Congress Todd] Blanche’s selection for acting Register of Copyrights, Paul Perkins, has not returned to the Library of Congress since he was denied access on May 12, 2025.”

Another obvious-but-key point: It’d be decidedly difficult, if not impossible, for either side to direct policy from outside the Copyright Office itself. Thus, legal clarity regarding Perlmutter’s claims, while potentially a ways off, looks to be a necessary stop on the road to fresh USCO guidance regarding AI and more.