"United States Code" isn't 'the law'!

[Librarian]

This is today's bit of learning for me, and it just reinforces that I am NOT a lawyer.

Volokh has a snippet -

Fun fact: The U.S. Code isn't really the law. Not in a that-flag-has-gold-fringe-your-Honor sense, but in that the U.S. Code is just a summary of statutes actually passed by Congress, and when the language of the Code conflicts with the statute, the statute controls—a fun fact that makes a rare appearance in actual, non-sovereign-citizen litigation in this Ninth Circuit opinion.

And by gum, we come to Statutes at Large where they say

What is it?

The United States Statutes at Large, typically referred to as the Statutes at Large, is the permanent collection of all laws and resolutions enacted during each session of Congress. The Statutes at Large is prepared and published by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Every public and private law passed by Congress is published in the Statutes at Large in order of the date it was enacted into law. The laws are arranged by Public Law number and are cited by volume and page number. Also included in the United States Statutes at Large are concurrent resolutions, proclamations by the President, proposed and ratified amendments to the Constitution, and reorganization plans. Until 1948, treaties and international agreements approved by the Senate were also published in the Statutes at Large.

...

Under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 112, the printed edition of the Statutes at Large is legal evidence of the laws, concurrent resolutions, proclamations by the President, and proposed and ratified amendments to the Constitution.

[Odd_Ball]

Wow ... and how would one even realize the discrepancy between the US Code and Satutes at Large in order to raise the argument?

Below is the language from the 9th Circuit opinion (Galvez v Jaddou, No 20-36052) that Volokh is referring to ... I understand the ultimate conclusion, but keeping track of the argument along the way much less so.

However, the provision that has been codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) was enacted by § 306(a)(2) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”). Section 306(a)(2) of the IIRIRA amended the INA by, among other things, adding § 242(f)(1), the provision that was encoded at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). Unlike 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), the text of § 242(f)(1) of the INA provides that it applies to “the provisions of chapter 4 of title II, as amended by the [IIRIRA].” Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. C, § 306(a)(2), 110 Stat. at 3009-611 (1996). Elsewhere, the IIRIRA provides that, “whenever in this division [i.e., IIRIRA] an amendment . . . is expressed as the amendment . . . of a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to that section or provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act.” Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. C, § 1(b)(1), 110 Stat. at 3009-546. This means that the jurisdictional bar of § 242(f)(1) of the INA, as enacted by § 306(a)(2) of the IIRIRA, applies to “the provisions of chapter 4 of title II [of the INA], as amended by [IIRIRA] of 1996.”

The reference in § 306(a)(2) of the IIRIRA to “the provisions of chapter 4 of title II” was changed to “the provisions of part IV of this subchapter” in the encoded version of the law. But the text of the United States Code “cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.” Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426 (1943) (per curiam); see also U.S. Nat’l Bank of Oregon v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 448 (1993) (“[T]he Statutes at Large . . . provide[] the ‘legal evidence of laws.’” (quoting 1 U.S.C. § 112)); Preston v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1359, 1368 (9th Cir. 1984) (The law “as it appears in the Statutes at Large must prevail” over an “inconsistent” version in the United States Code).

Accordingly, the jurisdiction-stripping provision of § 242(f)(1) of the INA applies to certain injunctions that enforce or restrain certain provisions of the INA as modified by the IIRIRA. However, 8 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(2) was enacted in 2008 by § 235(d)(2) of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”). TVPRA, Pub. L. No. 110-457, § 235(d)(2), 122 Stat. at 5080 (2008). Although some provisions of the TVPRA directly amend the INA, including some provisions within § 235 of the TVPRA, § 235(d)(2) does not amend the INA. Thus, the law that § 235(d)(2) of the TVPRA enacted is not a provision of the INA even though it has been placed within Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II of the United States Code. And § 235(d)(2) of the TVPRA is certainly not a provision of the INA “as amended by the [IIRIRA] of 1996,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) (emphasis added). The TVPRA was enacted in 2008; it could not have enacted a law that was amended by the IIRIRA of 1996.

Accordingly, we hold—as the parties in this case have agreed in supplemental briefing—that the jurisdictional bar of § 242(f)(1) of the INA, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), does not apply to an order that “enjoin[s] or restrain[s] the operation of” § 235(d)(2) of the TVPRA, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(2).

[squeeze]

Holy Moly!!!! I think we need to bring in the Navajo code breakers to make sense of that.

[Sir Toast]

Bring the U.S. down, one brick at a time.

Now our laws are meaningless?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Sir Toast

Bring the U.S. down, one brick at a time.

Now our laws are meaningless?

No more than usual. Just that there is an 'authoritative' text for laws, and it is not the somewhat more obvious United States Code.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Librarian

No more than usual. Just that there is an 'authoritative' text for laws, and it is not the somewhat more obvious United States Code.

If we cannot rely on the United States Code all the more reason we need several ARs, lots of standard capacity magazines and at least 50K of rounds for the firearms we have. I need to get my butt off of this chair and start pulling the handles on my Dillon Super 1050 and Hornady LnL presses.

[Sir Toast]

If we can't rely on laws, 1/3 of the government, the Judiciary, is meaningless.

[DentonandSasquatchShow]

That thing must be a million pages long. They need to go through and strike all old/outdated laws.

[Ishooter]

That doesn't matter. They'll have authority personnels with guns come to arrest those who don't follow their US codes, and say that code is what they go by.