U.S. Code » Title 2 » Chapter CHAPTER 9A— OFFICE OF LAW REVISION COUNSEL

2 U.S.C. § 285b

Functions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 2 CasesGoogle Scholar
The functions of the Office shall be as follows:(1) To prepare, and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary one title at a time, a complete compilation, restatement, and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United States which conforms to the understood policy, intent, and purpose of the Congress in the original enactments, with such amendments and corrections as will remove ambiguities, contradictions, and other imperfections both of substance and of form, separately stated, with a view to the enactment of each title as positive law.(2) To examine periodically all of the public laws enacted by the Congress and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary recommendations for the repeal of obsolete, superfluous, and superseded provisions contained therein.(3) To prepare and publish periodically a new edition of the United States Code (including those titles which are not yet enacted into positive law as well as those titles which have been so enacted), with annual cumulative supplements reflecting newly enacted laws.(4) To classify newly enacted provisions of law to their proper positions in the Code where the titles involved have not yet been enacted into positive law.(5) To prepare and submit periodically such revisions in the titles of the Code which have been enacted into positive law as may be necessary to keep such titles current.(6) To prepare and publish periodically new editions of the District of Columbia Code, with annual cumulative supplements reflecting newly enacted laws, through publication of the fifth annual cumulative supplement to the 1973 edition of such Code.(7) To provide the Committee on the Judiciary with such advice and assistance as the committee may request in carrying out its functions with respect to the revision and codification of the Federal statutes.(Pub. L. 93–554, title I, ch. III, § 101, Dec. 27, 1974, 88 Stat. 1777; Pub. L. 94–386, § 1, Aug. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1170.)Editorial NotesCodification

Section is based on section 205(c) of House Resolution No. 988, Ninety-third Congress, Oct. 8, 1974, which was enacted into permanent law by Pub. L. 93–554.

Amendments

1976—Par. (6). Pub. L. 94–386 substituted “through publication of the fifth annual cumulative supplement to the 1973 edition of such Code” for “until such time as the District of Columbia Self–Government and Governmental Reorganization Act becomes effective”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesPreparation and Publication of District of Columbia Code Under Direction of Council of the District of Columbia

Pub. L. 94–386, § 2, Aug. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1170, provided that:“(a) After publication by the Law Revision Counsel of the fifth annual cumulative supplement to the 1973 edition of the District of Columbia Code, new editions of the District of Columbia Code (and annual cumulative supplements thereto) shall be prepared and published under the direction of the Council of the District of Columbia and shall set forth the general and permanent laws relating to or in force in the District of Columbia, whether enacted by the Congress or by the Council of the District of Columbia, except such laws as are of application in the District of Columbia by reason of being laws of the United States general and permanent in nature.“(b) After completion of the printing of the fifth annual cumulative supplement to the 1973 edition of the District of Columbia Code, the Public Printer [now Director of the Government Publishing Office] shall, as the Council of the District of Columbia may request, either—“(1) furnish to the Council of the District of Columbia, on such terms as the Public Printer [now Director of the Government Publishing Office] (in consultation with the Joint Committee on Printing) deems appropriate, the type used in preparing the 1973 edition of the District of Columbia Code and the fifth annual cumulative supplement to such edition;  or“(2) make such arrangements with the Council of the District of Columbia as the Public Printer [now Director of the Government Publishing Office] (in consultation with the Joint Committee on Printing) deems appropriate for the printing by the Government Printing Office [now Government Publishing Office] of future editions of the District of Columbia Code, and annual cumulative supplements thereto, prepared under the direction of the Council of the District of Columbia.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: United States v. Duane Ehmer, 87 F.4th 1073 (9th Cir. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Duane Ehmer, 87 F.4th 1073 (9th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “” 2 U.S.C. § 285b(3). Because the features on which Appellants rely are merely editorial additions made by a congressional office, and not any part of a statute enacted by Congress, they are entitled to no weight and provide no grounds for disregarding the clear statutory text.”
Gonzalez v. Vill. of West Milwaukee, 671 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2012). “” 2 U.S.C. § 285b(l); see also Whisner, at 553-56.”
United States v. Loniello, 610 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2010). “…every separate number must create a different crime. We cannot imagine any reason why the Constitution would be thought to allow successive prosecutions if § 2113(a) ¶ 1 were redesignated § 2113(a)(1), and ¶ 2 as § 2113(a)(2), or if they were renumbered as § 2113(a) and §…”
Lyons v. Georgia-Pac. Corp. Salaried Employees Ret. Plan, 221 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2000). “See generally 2 U.S.C. § 285b(4) (authorizing the Office of the Law Revision Counsel "[t]o classify newly enacted provisions of law to their proper positions in the [United States] Code where the titles involved have not yet been enacted into positive law”).”
Howard Univ. Hosp. v. Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 200 A.3d 1244 (D.C. 2019). “Council, including "interpret[ing] any discrepancies in the drafting of the laws[,] using commonly recognized rules of statutory construction"); *1250 2 U.S.C. § 285b(4) (2017) (duties of federal Office of the Law Revision Counsel include "classify[ing] newly enacted provisions…”
Arabian Motors Grp. W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., 228 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Mich. 2017). “Nor did the final, approved version of the Act identify where Congress intended the Act to appear in the United States Code. The decision to place the Fairness Act in Chapter 15 of the United States Code appears to have been made by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel…”
Panjiva, Inc. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 342 F. Supp. 3d 481 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “See 2 U.S.C. § 285b. The resulting codification of § 431(c)(1) of the Tariff Act produced the version that still exists today: Except as provided in subparagraph (2), the following information, when contained in a vessel vessel or aircraft manifest, shall be available for public…”
Preston v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1359 (9th Cir. 1984). “10 In codifying the section in both the 1976 and 1982 versions of the United States Code, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, ostensibly acting under statutory authority, see 2 U.S.C. § 285b(2) (1982), omitted as obsolete the phrase “without regard to civil-service laws”…”
Preston v. Schweiker, 555 F. Supp. 886 (D. Alaska 1983). “The court additionally notes that plaintiff has made no showing that the omission was not made in compliance with 2 U.S.C. § 285b (1976).”
Turner, Henry v. Glickman, Daniel R., 207 F.3d 419 (7th Cir. 2000). “See 2 U.S.C. § 285b(4). Moreover, Congress has not approved this codification decision by subsequently enacting Title 21 into positive law.”
Howard Univ. Hosp. v. DC DOES & James M. Lyles (D.C. 2019). “Council, including “interpret[ing] any discrepancies in the drafting of the laws[,] using commonly recognized rules of statutory construction”); 2 U.S.C. § 285b(4) (2017) (duties of federal Office of the Law Revision Counsel include “classify[ing] newly enacted provisions of law…”
United States v. State of Washington (9th Cir. 2021). “§ 204 (a); 2 U.S.C. § 285b. 26 UNITED STATES V. STATE OF WASHINGTON 1 First, the panel disregarded Goodyear’s controlling construction of the statutory phrase at issue here.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— 2 U.S.C. § 285b(2) — 1 case
Preston v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1359 (9th Cir. 1984). “10 In codifying the section in both the 1976 and 1982 versions of the United States Code, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, ostensibly acting under statutory authority, see 2 U.S.C. § 285b(2) (1982), omitted as obsolete the phrase “without regard to civil-service laws”…”
— 2 U.S.C. § 285b(3) — 2 cases
United States v. Duane Ehmer, 87 F.4th 1073 (9th Cir. 2023). “” 2 U.S.C. § 285b(3). Because the features on which Appellants rely are merely editorial additions made by a congressional office, and not any part of a statute enacted by Congress, they are entitled to no weight and provide no grounds for disregarding the clear statutory text.”
Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Adelson (9th Cir. 2025).
— 2 U.S.C. § 285b(4) — 6 cases
United States v. Duane Ehmer, 87 F.4th 1073 (9th Cir. 2023). “” 2 U.S.C. § 285b(3). Because the features on which Appellants rely are merely editorial additions made by a congressional office, and not any part of a statute enacted by Congress, they are entitled to no weight and provide no grounds for disregarding the clear statutory text.”
Lyons v. Georgia-Pac. Corp. Salaried Employees Ret. Plan, 221 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2000). “See generally 2 U.S.C. § 285b(4) (authorizing the Office of the Law Revision Counsel "[t]o classify newly enacted provisions of law to their proper positions in the [United States] Code where the titles involved have not yet been enacted into positive law”).”
Howard Univ. Hosp. v. Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 200 A.3d 1244 (D.C. 2019). “Council, including "interpret[ing] any discrepancies in the drafting of the laws[,] using commonly recognized rules of statutory construction"); *1250 2 U.S.C. § 285b(4) (2017) (duties of federal Office of the Law Revision Counsel include "classify[ing] newly enacted provisions…”
Turner, Henry v. Glickman, Daniel R., 207 F.3d 419 (7th Cir. 2000). “See 2 U.S.C. § 285b(4). Moreover, Congress has not approved this codification decision by subsequently enacting Title 21 into positive law.”
Howard Univ. Hosp. v. DC DOES & James M. Lyles (D.C. 2019). “Council, including “interpret[ing] any discrepancies in the drafting of the laws[,] using commonly recognized rules of statutory construction”); 2 U.S.C. § 285b(4) (2017) (duties of federal Office of the Law Revision Counsel include “classify[ing] newly enacted provisions of law…”
— 2 U.S.C. § 285b(l) — 1 case
Gonzalez v. Vill. of West Milwaukee, 671 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2012). “” 2 U.S.C. § 285b(l); see also Whisner, at 553-56.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.