explicitly identify the interplay between the two statutes renders their posting of the adopted codes inaccurate.
While Defendants certainly must post a government’s amendments to the I-Codes in order to accurately portray the enacted law, saying that Current UpCodes does not post “the law” because it does not include additional legal material that may bear on the enacted model text’s full meaning presents serious practical problems. Statutes and regulations interact with each other in a variety of ways without explicitly being adopted into each other. If posting other statutory provisions is necessary to make the posting of one provision complete, understanding certain highly regulated fields of private endeavor might require posting significant swathes of the relevant title, if not multiple titles. The Court is not persuaded that such an inquiry into completeness is necessary to understand whether a particular codification carries the force of law.[1]
The Court will nevertheless deny Defendants’ Motion at this time. ICC has still raised genuine factual disputes
- ↑ There are many possible examples demonstrating why a contrary rule would be untenable. As one, no one can reasonably deny that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 sets forth “the law” regarding motions to dismiss in federal court, even though Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), Congressional statutes, and judicial case law all provide important qualifications regarding the application of that rule in securities fraud cases.
58
