Editing Eldred v. Ashcroft (section)

==Court of Appeals==
The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the district court to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]], filing their initial [[Brief (law)|brief]] on May 22, 2000, and arguing the case on October 5 of the same year in front of a three-judge panel. Arguments were similar to those made in the district court, except for those regarding the public trust doctrine, which were not included in the appeal.

Instead, the plaintiffs extended their argument on the copyright clause to note that the clause requires [[United States Congress|Congress]] to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", and argued that retroactive extensions do not directly serve this purpose in the standard ''[[quid pro quo]]'' previously required by the courts.

The case was decided on February 16, 2001. The appeals court upheld the decision of the district court in a 2–1 opinion. In his dissent, Judge [[David Sentelle]] agreed with the plaintiffs that CTEA was indeed unconstitutional based on the "limited Times" requirement. Supreme Court precedent, he argued, held that one must be able to discern an "outer limit" to a limited power; in the case of retrospective copyright extensions, Congress could continue to extend copyright terms indefinitely through a set of limited extensions, thus rendering the "limited times" requirement meaningless.

Following this ruling, plaintiffs petitioned for a rehearing ''[[en banc]]'' (in front of the full panel of nine judges). This petition was rejected, 7&ndash;2, with Judges Sentelle and [[David Tatel]] dissenting.