In the 2002 case of Eric Eldred v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998. The CTEA extended copyright protections for an additional 20 years beyond their original terms - a total duration of life-of-the-author plus seventy years for individual works and ninety-five to one hundred twenty years for corporate or anonymous works. Petitioners argued that this extension violated both the "limited Times" restriction in Article I Section 8 Clause 8 and First Amendment free speech rights by effectively creating perpetual copyrights and limiting public access to creative works. However, in a seven-to-two decision delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was ruled that Congress acted within its authority under the Constitution's Copyright Clause as long as it maintains a balance between promoting creativity through exclusive rights and allowing public access after these limited times expire.

In the dissenting opinion for Eric Eldred, et al. v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General (2002), Justice Breyer argued that the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) was unconstitutional as it violated both the "limited Times" restriction and First Amendment free speech protection of the Constitution. He contended that extending copyright terms by 20 years did not promote progress in science and arts but rather created a perpetual monopoly which is against what Founders intended with copyright laws - to provide temporary monopolies to incentivize creation while ensuring public access after some time. Furthermore, he believed CTEA's economic impact would primarily benefit media companies and heirs of original creators at expense of educational institutions, libraries and researchers who rely on public domain works; thus stifening learning opportunities contrary to First Amendment principles.