author: Justice Stevens

text:
    ANTOINE v. BYERS & ANDERSON, INC., et al.
    Argued March 30, 1993
    Decided June 7, 1993

      M. Margaret McKeown argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs was Alice D. Leiner.

      William P. Fite argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for respondent Ruggenberg was Mark

      M. Miller. Tyna Ek filed a brief for respondent Byers & Anderson, Inc.

        Denise Meyer, Michael J Brennan, Dennis E. Curtis, Judith Resnik, and Charles D. Weisselberg filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

        Jeffrey P. Altman filed a brief for the National Court Reporters Association as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

   Justice Stevens

This case presents the question whether a court reporter is absolutely immune from damages liability for failing to produce a transcript of a federal criminal trial.

I

In March 1986, after a 2-day trial, a jury convicted petitioner of bank robbery. Petitioner promptly appealed and ordered a copy of the transcript from respondent Ruggenberg, who had served as the court reporter. The court ordered Ruggenberg to produce a transcript by May 29, 1986.

Over two years later, Ruggenberg had yet to provide a transcript, despite a long series of hearings, court orders, and new filing deadlines. In July 1988, Ruggenberg finally explained that she had lost many of her trial notes, though additional notes and tapes were later to come to light. At one point in the proceedings, Ruggenberg was fined and arrested as the Court of Appeals sought to obtain this and other overdue transcripts. Eventually, making use of Ruggenberg’s partial notes and materials submitted by the parties pursuant to Rule 10(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, another reporter produced a partial transcript and the appellate process went forward. As a result of the delay in obtaining a transcript, petitioner’s appeal was not heard until four years after his conviction. 950 F. 2d 1471, 1472-1473 (CA9 1991); No. C88-260TB (WD Wash., Feb. 16, 1990), pp. 2-3, reprinted in App. 24.

In 1990, the Court of Appeals set aside petitioner’s conviction and remanded the ease to the District Court to determine whether petitioner’s appeal had been prejudiced by the lack of a verbatim transcript, and whether the delay in receiving the transcript violated petitioner’s constitutional right to due process. United States v. Antoine, 906 F. 2d 1379 (CA9). The District Court ruled against petitioner on both issues and reinstated his conviction. No. C85-87T (WD Wash., Aug. 21,1991), reprinted in App. 45. The Court of Appeals then affirmed. 967 F. 2d 592 (CA9 1992) (judgt. order), reprinted in App. 66.

In the meantime, before the Court of Appeals disposed of his first appeal in 1990, petitioner filed this civil action, seeking damages from Ruggenberg and respondent Byers & Anderson, Inc., the firm that had engaged her pursuant to its contract to provide reporting services to the District Court. Following discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents on the ground that they were entitled to absolute immunity. Petitioner’s pendent state-law claims were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. No. C88-260TB, supra, reprinted in App. 23.

Without reaching questions of liability or damages, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Reasoning that judicial immunity is “justified and defined by the functions it protects and serves,” Forrester v. White, 484 U. S. 219, 227 (1988) (emphasis omitted), and that “the tasks performed by a court reporter in furtherance of her statutory duties are functionally part and parcel of the judicial process,” the Court of Appeals held that actions within the scope of a reporter’s authority are absolutely immune. 950 F. 2d, at 1475-1476.

Some Circuits have held that court reporters are protected only by qualified immunity. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 506 U. S. 914 (1992).

II

The proponent of a claim to absolute immunity bears the burden of establishing the justification for such immunity. In determining which officials perform functions that might justify a full exemption from liability, “we have undertaken ‘a considered inquiry into the immunity historically accorded the relevant official at common law and the interests behind it.’” Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, 508 (1978) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 421 (1976)); see also Burns v. Reed, 500 U. S. 478, 485 (1991).

The skilled, professional court reporter of today was unknown during the centuries when the common-law doctrine of judicial immunity developed. See generally Ratteray, Verbatim Reporting Comes of Age, 56 Judicature 368 (1973). It was not until the late 19th century that official court reporters began to appear in state courts. Id., at 368-369. Prior to enactment of the Court Reporter Act in 1944, the federal system did not provide for official court reporting. Court reporters were not among the class of persons protected by judicial immunity in the 19th century.

Faced with the absence of a common-law tradition involving court reporters themselves, respondents urge us to treat as their historical counterparts common-law judges who made handwritten notes during trials. We find the analogy unpersuasive. The function performed by judicial note-takers at common law is significantly different from that performed by court reporters today. Whereas court reporters are charged by statute with producing a “verbatim” transcript of each session of the court, for inclusion in the official record, 28 U. S. C. § 753(b), common-law judges exercise discretion and judgment in deciding exactly what, and how much, they will write. Early judicial notetakers, for instance, left records from which the “narrative of the trial cannot be reconstructed”; their notes were for their own purposes in charging the jury and were never entered into the public record. Langbein, Shaping the Eighteenth-Century Criminal Trial: A View from the Ryder Sources, 50 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1, 5-6 (1983).

There is a second problem with respondents’ theory. Even had common-law judges performed the functions of a court reporter, that would not end the immunity inquiry. It would still remain to consider whether judges, when performing that function, were themselves entitled to absolute immunity. We do not doubt that judicial notetaking as it is commonly practiced is protected by absolute immunity, because it involves the kind of discretionary decisionmaking that the doctrine of judicial immunity is designed to protect. But if we could imagine a hypothetical case in which a common-law judge felt himself bound to transcribe an entire proceeding verbatim, it is far less clear — and neither respondent refers us to any case law suggesting — that this administrative duty would be similarly protected. Indeed, we have recently held that judges are not entitled to absolute immunity when acting in their administrative capacity. Forrester v. White, 484 U. S. 219, 229 (1988).

We are also unpersuaded by the contention that our “functional approach” to immunity, see Burns v. Reed, 500 U. S., at 486, requires that absolute immunity be extended to court reporters because they are “part of the judicial function,” see 950 F. 2d, at 1476. The doctrine of judicial immunity is supported by a long-settled understanding that the independent and impartial exercise of judgment vital to the judiciary might be impaired by exposure to potential damages liability. Accordingly, the “touchstone” for the doctrine’s applicability has been “performance of the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.” 500 U. S., at 500 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). When judicial immunity is extended to officials other than judges, it is because their judgments are “functionally] comparable]” to those of judges — that is, because they, too, “exercise a discretionary judgment” as a part of their function. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S., at 423, n. 20. Cf. Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U. S. 292, 297-298 (1988) (absolute immunity from state-law tort actions available to executive officials only when their conduct is discretionary).

The function performed by court reporters is not in this category. As noted above, court reporters are required by statute to “reeor[d] verbatim” court proceedings in their entirety. 28 U. S. C. § 753(b). They are afforded no discretion in the carrying out of this duty; they are to record, as accurately as possible, what transpires in court. See McLallen v. Henderson, 492 F. 2d 1298, 1299 (CA8 1974) (court reporters not absolutely immune “because their duties are ministerial, not discretionary, in nature”); Waterman v. State, 35 Misc. 2d 954, 957, 232 N. Y. S. 2d 22, 26 (Ct. Cl. 1962), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 241 N. Y. S. 2d 314 (4th Dept., App. Div. 1963) (same). We do not mean to suggest that the task is less than difficult, or that reporters who do it well are less than highly skilled. But the difficulty of a job does not by itself make it functionally comparable to that of a judge. Cf. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 342 (1986) (police officer not entitled to absolute immunity for conduct involved in applying for warrant). Nor is it sufficient that the task of a court reporter is extremely important or, in the words of the Court of Appeals, “indispensable to the appellate process.” 950 F. 2d, at 1476. As we explained in Forrester, some of the tasks performed by judges themselves, “even though they may be essential to the very functioning of the courts, have not . . . been regarded as judicial acts.” 484 U. S., at 228. In short, court reporters do not exercise the kind of judgment that is protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Finally, respondents argue that strong policy reasons support extension of absolute immunity to court reporters. According to respondents, given the current volume of litigation in the federal courts, some reporters inevitably will be unable to meet deadlines. Absolute immunity would help to protect the entire judicial process from vexatious lawsuits brought by disappointed litigants when this happens. Requiring court reporters to defend against allegations like those asserted here, on the other hand, would not only be unfair, but would also aggravate the problem by contributing further to the caseload in the federal courts.

Assuming the relevance of respondents’ policy arguments, we find them unpersuasive for three reasons. First, our understanding is that cases of this kind are relatively rare. Respondents have not provided us with empirical evidence demonstrating the existence of any significant volume of vexatious and burdensome actions against reporters, even in the Circuits in which reporters are not absolutely immune. See n. 3, supra. Second, if a large number of cases does materialize, and we have misjudged the significance of this burden, then a full review of the countervailing policy considerations by the Congress may result in appropriate amendment to the Court Reporter Act. Third, and most important, we have no reason to believe that the Federal Judiciary, which surely is familiar with the special virtues and concerns of the court reporting profession, will be unable to administer justice to its members fairly.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

       Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c) provides in relevant part:

        “Statement on the evidence or proceedings when no report was made or when the transcript is unavailable. — If no report of the evidence or proceedings at a hearing or trial was made, or if a transcript is unavailable, the appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including the appellant’s recollection.”

       In addition to state-law claims, petitioner's complaint had alleged a violation of 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Noting that petitioner's state-law claims had been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, and that § 1983 does not provide a basis for suit against federal agents, the Court of Appeals assumed that the complaint alleged facts sufficient to support a federal claim like that recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 950 F. 2d 1471, 1473-1474 (CA9 1991). Because the only question presented by the certiorari petition relates to the absolute immunity defense on which the Court of Appeals based its decision, see Pet. for Cert, i, we have no occasion to comment on the validity of petitioner's underlying cause of action.

       See McLallen v. Henderson, 492 F. 2d 1298, 1299-1300 (CA8 1974); Slavin v. Curry, 574 F. 2d 1256, 1265-1266 (CA5 1978); Green v. Maraio, 722 F. 2d 1013, 1018 (CA2 1983). The Seventh Gircuit, like the Ninth, provides absolute immunity for court reporters. Scruggs v. Moellering, 870 F. 2d 376, 377, cert. denied, 493 U. S. 956 (1989).

         We have consistently “emphasized that the official seeking absolute immunity bears the burden of showing that such immunity is justified for the function in question. The presumption is that qualified rather than absolute immunity is sufficient to protect government officials in the exercise of their duties. We have been quite sparing in our recognition of absolute immunity, and have refused to extend it any further than its justification would warrant.” Burns v. Reed, 500 U. S. 478, 486-487 (1991) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

      For purposes of immunity, we have not distinguished actions brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against state officials from Bivens actions brought against federal officials. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, 503-504 (1978).

       58 Stat. 5, as amended, 28 U. S. C. §753.

       In a case decided in 1942, we pointed out:
      “There is no law of the United States creating the position of official court stenographer and none requiring the stenographic report of any case, civil or criminal, and there is none providing for payment for the services of a stenographer in reporting judicial proceedings. The practice has been for the parties to agree that a designated person shall so report. The one selected must be paid by private arrangement with one or more of the parties to the litigation. The amount paid to him is not costs in the cause nor taxable as such against any of the parties.” Miller v. United States, 317 U. S. 192, 197.

       “Judicial Immunity... was an absolute immunity from all claims relating to the exercise of judicial functions. See, e. g., T. Cooley, Law of Torts 408-409 (1880). It extended not only to judges narrowly speaking, but to ‘military and naval officers in exercising their authority to order courts-martial for the trial of their inferiors, or in putting their inferiors under arrest preliminary to trial;... to grand and petit jurors in the discharge of their duties as such; to assessors upon whom is imposed the duty of valuing property for the purpose of a levy of taxes; to commissioners appointed to appraise damages when property is taken under the right of eminent domain; to officers empowered to lay out, alter, and discontinue highways; to highway officers in deciding that a person claiming exemption from a road tax is not in fact exempt, or that one arrested is in default for not having worked out the assessment; to members of a township board in deciding upon the allowance of claims; to arbitrators, and to the collector of customs in exercising his authority to sell perishable property, and in fixing upon the time for notice of sale.’ Id. at 410-411 (footnotes omitted).
      “As is evident from the foregoing catalog, judicial immunity extended not only to public officials but also to private citizens (in particular jurors and arbitrators); the touchstone for its applicability was performance of the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.” Burns v. Reed, 500 U. S., at 499-500 (Scania, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).

       Indeed, the doctrine of judicial immunity was recognized in part to avoid imposing on judges the obligation to make complete trial transcripts.
      “If upon such allegations a judge could be compelled to answer in a civil action for his judicial acts, not only would his office be degraded and his usefulness destroyed, but he would be subjected for his protection to the necessity of preserving a complete record of all the evidence produced before him in every litigated case, and of the authorities cited and arguments presented, in order that he might be able to show to the judge before whom he might be summoned by the losing party... that he had decided as he did with judicial integrity....” Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 349 (1872).

       "For it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself Liability to answer to every one who might feel himself aggrieved by the action of the judge, would be inconsistent with the possession of this freedom, and would destroy that independence without which no judiciary can be either respectable or useful.” Id., at 347. See also Mireles v. Waco, 502 U. S. 9, 10 (1991), and cases cited therein.

       “A court stenographer, notwithstanding the fact that he is an officer of the court, by the very nature of his work performs no judicial function. His duties are purely ministerial and administrative; he has no power of decision. The doctrine [of judicial immunity] has no application to the facts with which we are confronted here.” Waterman, 35 Misc. 2d, at 957, 232 N. Y. S. 2d, at 26.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Souter

license: Public Domain

text:
    UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON v. INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS OF AMERICA, INC., et al.
    No. 92-484.
    Argued April 19, 1993
    Decided June 7, 1993

      Christopher J. Wright argued the cause for petitioners in both eases and filed a brief for petitioners in No. 92-507. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Bryson, Assistant Attorney General Gerson, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Robert V. Zener, Jacob M. Lewis, William R Bowden, Jr., Ernest C. Barrett III, and Lester N. Scall. Kenneth L. Bachman, Jr., and Michael R. Lazerwitz filed briefs for petitioner in No. 92-484.

      Ann M. Kappler argued the cause for respondents in both eases. With her on the brief were Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., and Nory Miller.

      Together with No. 92-507, Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency, et al. v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc., et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

        John J. Gill III, Michael F. Crotty, Richard M. Whiting, Leonard J. Rubin, and John S. Jackson filed a brief for the American Bankers Association et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

   Justice Souter

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Comptroller of the Currency recently relied on a statutory provision enacted in 1916 to permit national banks located in small communities to sell insurance to customers outside those communities. These cases present the unlikely question whether Congress repealed that provision in 1918. We hold that no repeal occurred.

I

Almost 80 years ago, Congress authorized any national bank “doing business in any place the population of which does not exceed five thousand inhabitants ... [to] act as the agent for any fire, life, or other insurance company.” Act of Sept. 7, 1916, 39 Stat. 753. In the first compilation of the United States Code, this provision appeared as section 92 of Title 12. See 12 U. S. C. § 92 (1926 ed.); see also United States Code editions of 1934, 1940, and 1946. The 1952 edition of the Code, however, omitted the insurance provision, with a note indicating that Congress had repealed it in 1918. See 12 U. S. C. § 92 (1952 ed.) (note). Though the provision has also been left out of the subsequent editions of the United States Code, including the current one (each containing in substance the same note that appeared in 1952, see United States Code editions of 1958, 1964, 1970, 1976, 1982, and 1988), the parties refer to it as “section 92,” and so will we.

Despite the absence of section 92 from the Code, Congress has assumed that it remains in force, on one occasion actually-amending it. See Gam-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, § 403(b), 96 Stat. 1511; see also Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987, § 201(b)(5), 101 Stat. 583 (imposing a 1-year moratorium on section 92 activities). The regulators concerned with the provision’s subject, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Board, have likewise acted on the understanding that section 92 remains the law, see Brief for Federal Petitioners in No. 92-507, pp. 31-32; Brief for Petitioner in No. 92-484, pp. 26-28, and indeed it was a ruling by the Comptroller relying on section 92 that precipitated these cases.

The ruling came on a request by United States National Bank of Oregon (Bank), a national bank with its principal place of business in Portland, Oregon, to sell insurance through its branch in Banks, Oregon (population: 489), to customers nationwide. The Comptroller approved the request in 1986, interpreting section 92 to permit national bank branches located in communities with populations not exceeding 5,000 to sell insurance to customers not only inside but also outside those communities. See App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 92-507, pp. 74a-79a. The Bank is the petitioner in the first of the cases we decide today; the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the United States are the petitioners in the other.

Respondents in both cases are various trade organizations representing insurance agents. They challenged the Comptroller’s decision in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming the Comptroller’s ruling to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A). Respondents argued, among other things, that the ruling was inconsistent with section 92, which respondents maintained permits national banks located in small communities to sell insurance only to customers in those communities. The District Court disagreed and granted summary judgment for the federal parties and the Bank, a defendant-intervenor, on the ground that the Comptroller’s interpretation was “rational and consistent with [section 92].” National Assn. of Life Underwriters v. Clarke, 736 F. Supp. 1162, 1173 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The District Court thought it “worth noting that this section no longer appears in the United States Code” as it “apparently was inadvertently repealed” in 1918; but because Congress, the Comptroller, and other courts have presumed its continuing validity, the court was content to assume that the provision exists “in proprio vigore,” meaning, we take it, of its own force. Id., at 1163, n. 2.

Respondents had not asked the District Court to rule that section 92 no longer existed, and they took the same tack before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, merely noting in their opening brief that section 92 may have been repealed in 1918 and then stating that all the relevant players had assumed its validity. The Court of Appeals, nevertheless, directed the parties to be prepared to address the status of section 92 at oral argument, and after oral argument (at which respondents’ counsel declined to argue that the provision was no longer in force) ordered supplemental briefing on the issue. In their supplemental brief, respondents urged the court to decide the question, but took no position on whether section 92 was valid law. The Court of Appeals did decide the issue, reversing the District Court’s decision and remanding with instructions to enter judgment for respondents. The court found first that, though the parties had not on their own questioned the validity of section 92, the court had a “duty” to do so, Independent Ins. Agents of America, Inc. v. Clarke, 293 U. S. App. D. C. 403, 406, 955 F. 2d 731, 734 (1992); and, second, that the relevant statutes, “traditionally construed,” demonstrate that Congress repealed section 92 in 1918, id., at 407, 955 F. 2d, at 735. Judge Silberman, dissenting, would have affirmed without addressing the validity of section 92, an issue he thought was not properly before the court. Id., at 413-416, 955 F. 2d, at 741-744. The Court of Appeals denied respondents’ suggestion for rehearing en banc, with several judges filing separate statements. See 296 U. S. App. D. C. 115, 965 F. 2d 1077 (1992).

The Bank and the federal parties separately petitioned for certiorari, both petitions presenting the question whether section 92 remains in force and the Bank presenting the additional question whether the Court of Appeals properly addressed the issue. Because of a conflict on the important question whether section 92 is valid law, see American Land Title Assn. v. Clarke, 968 F. 2d 150, 151-154 (CA2 1992), cert. pending, Nos. 92-482, 92-645, we granted the petitions. 506 U. S. 1032 (1992). We now reverse.

II

Before turning to the status of section 92, we address the Bank’s threshold question, whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering the issue at all. Respondents did not challenge the validity of section 92 before the District Court; they did not do so in their opening brief in the Court of Appeals or, despite the court’s invitation, at oral argument. Not until the Court of Appeals ordered supplemental briefing on the status of section 92 did respondents even urge the court to resolve the issue, while still taking no position on the merits. The Bank contends that the Court of Appeals lacked the authority to consider whether section 92 remains the law and, alternatively, that it abused its discretion in doing so. There is no need to linger long over either argument.

“The exercise of judicial power under Art. Ill of the Constitution depends on the existence of a case or controversy,” and “a federal court [lacks] the power to render advisory opinions.” Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U. S. 395, 401 (1975); see also Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 97 (1968). The Bank maintains that there was no case or controversy about the validity of section 92, and that in resolving the status of the provision the Court of Appeals violated the Article III prohibition against advisory opinions.

There is no doubt, however, that from the start respondents’ suit was the “pursuance of an honest and actual antagonistic assertion of rights by one [party] against another,” Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346, 359 (1911) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), that “valuable legal rights . .. [would] be directly affected to a specific and substantial degree” by a decision on whether the Comptroller’s ruling was proper and lawful, Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U. S. 249, 262 (1933), and that the Court of Appeals therefore had before it a real case and controversy extending to that issue. Though the parties did not lock horns over the status of section 92, they did clash over whether the Comptroller properly relied on section 92 as authority for his ruling, and “[w]hen an issue or claim is properly before the court, the court is not limited to the particular legal theories advanced by the parties, but rather retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law,” Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc., 500 U. S. 90, 99 (1991), even where the proper construction is that a law does not govern because it is not in force. “The judicial Power” extends to cases “arising under___the Laws of the United States,” Art. Ill, § 2, cl. 1, and a court properly asked to construe a law has the constitutional power to determine whether the law exists, cf. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 405 (1821) (“[I]f, in any controversy depending in a court, the cause should depend on the validity of such a law, that would be a case arising under the constitution, to which the judicial power of the United States would extend”) (Marshall, C. J.). The contrary conclusion would permit litigants, by agreeing on the legal issue presented, to extract the opinion of a court on hypothetical Acts of Congress or dubious constitutional principles, an opinion that would be difficult to characterize as anything but advisory.

Nor did prudence oblige the Court of Appeals to treat the unasserted argument that section 92 had been repealed as having been waived. Respondents argued from the start, as we noted, that section 92 was not authority for the Comptroller’s ruling, and a court may consider an issue “antecedent to . . . and ultimately dispositive of” the dispute before it, even an issue the parties fail to identify and brief. Arcadia v. Ohio Power Co., 498 U. S. 73, 77 (1990); cf. Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton Int'l, Inc., ante, at 88-89, n. 9 (addressing a legal question as to which the parties agreed on the answer). The omission of section 92 from the United States Code, moreover, along with the codifiers’ indication that the provision had been repealed, created honest doubt about whether section 92 existed as law, and a court “need not render judgment on the basis of a rule of law whose nonexistence is apparent on the face of things, simply because the parties agree upon it.” United States v. Burke, 504 U. S. 229, 246 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). While the Bank says that by initially accepting the widespread assumption that section 92 remains in force, respondents forfeited their right to have the Court of Appeals consider whether the law exists, “[tjhere can be no estoppel in the way of ascertaining the existence of a law,” South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 260, 267 (1877). In addressing the status of section 92, the Court of Appeals did not stray beyond its constitutional or prudential boundaries.

The Court of Appeals, accordingly, had discretion to consider the validity of section 92, and under the circumstances did not abuse it. The court was asked to determine under the APA whether the Comptroller’s ruling was in accordance with a statutory provision that the keepers of the United States Code had suggested was no longer in force, on appeal from a District Court justifying its reliance on the law by the logic that, despite its “inadverten[t] repea[l],” section 92 remained in effect of its own force. 736 F. Supp., at 1163, n. 2. After giving the parties ample opportunity to address the issue, the Court of Appeals acted without any impropriety in refusing to accept what in effect was a stipulation on a question of law. Cf. Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley R. Co., 243 U. S. 281, 289 (1917). We need not decide whether the Court of Appeals had, as it concluded, a “duty” to address the status of section 92 (which would imply error in declining to do so), for the court’s decision to consider the issue was certainly no abuse of its discretion.

Ill

A

Though the appearance of a provision in the current edition of the United States Code is “prima facie” evidence that the provision has the force of law, 1 U. S. C. § 204(a), it is the Statutes at Large that provides the “legal evidence of laws,” § 112, and despite its omission from the Code section 92 remains on the books if the Statutes at Large so dictates. Cf. United States v. Welden, 377 U. S. 95, 98, n. 4 (1964); Stephan v. United States, 319 U. S. 423, 426 (1943) (per curiam). The analysis that underlies our conclusion that section 92 is valid law calls for familiarity with several provisions appearing in the Statutes at Large. This section provides the necessary statutory background.

The background begins in 1863 and 1864, when the Civil War Congress enacted and then reenacted the National Bank Act, which-launched the modern national banking system by providing for federal chartering of private commercial banks and empowering the newly created national banks to issue and accept a uniform national currency. Act of Feb. 25, 1863, ch. 58,12 Stat. 665; Act of June 3,1864, ch. 106,13 Stat. 99; see E. Symons, Jr., & J. White, Banking Law 22-25 (3d ed. 1991); see also 12 U. S. C. §38. In a section important for these eases, the National Bank Act set limits on the indebtedness of national banks, subject to certain exceptions. See §42,12 Stat. 677 (1863 Act); §36,13 Stat. 110 (1864 Act). Ten years later, Congress adopted the indebtedness provision again as part of the Revised Statutes of the United States, a massive revision, reorganization, and reenactment of all statutes in effeet at the time, accompanied by a simultaneous repeal of all prior ones. Rev. Stat. §§ 1-5601 (1874); see also Dwan & Feidler, The Federal Statutes — Their History and Use, 22 Minn. L. Rev. 1008, 1012-1015 (1938). Title 62 of the Revised Statutes, containing §§ 5133 through 5243, included the Nation’s banking laws, and, with a few stylistic alterations, the National Bank Act’s indebtedness provision became § 5202 of the Revised Statutes:

Sec. 5202. No association shall at any time be indebted, or in any way liable, to an amount exceeding the amount of its capital stock at such time actually paid in and remaining undiminished by losses or otherwise, except on account of demands of the nature following:
First. Notes of circulation.
Second. Moneys deposited with or collected by the association.
Third. Bills of exchange or drafts drawn against money actually on deposit to the credit of the association, or due thereto.
Fourth. Liabilities to the stockholders of the association for dividends and reserved profits.

In 1913 Congress amended Rev. Stat. § 5202 by adding a fifth exception to the indebtedness limit. The amendment was a detail of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (Federal Reserve Act or 1913 Act), which created Federal Reserve banks and the Federal Reserve Board and required the national banks formed pursuant to the National Bank Act to become members of the new Federal Reserve System. Federal Reserve Act, ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251; see P. Studenski & H. Krooss, Financial History of the United States 255-262 (2d ed. 1963). The amendment came in § 13 of the 1913 Act, the first five paragraphs of which set forth the powers of the new Federal Reserve banks, such as the authority to accept and discount various forms of notes and commercial paper, including those issued by national banks. Federal Reserve Act, § 13,38 Stat. 263-264. This (subject to ellipsis) followed:

Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows: No national banking association shall at any time be indebted, or in any way liable, to an amount exceeding the amount of its capital stock at such time actually paid in and remaining undiminished by losses or otherwise, except on account of demands of the nature following:
Fifth. Liabilities incurred under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act.

38 Stat. 264. The next and final paragraph of § 13 authorized the Federal Reserve Board to issue regulations governing the rediscount by Federal Reserve banks of bills receivable and bills of exchange. Ibid.

In 1916, Congress enacted what became section 92. It did so as part of a statute that amended various sections of the Federal Reserve Act and that, in the view of respondents and the Court of Appeals, also amended Rev. Stat. §5202. Act of Sept. 7, 1916, 39 Stat. 752 (1916 Act). Unlike the 1913 Act, the 1916 Act employed quotation marks, and those quotation marks proved critical to the Court of Appeals’s finding that the 1916 Act placed section 92 in Rev. Stat. § 5202. After amending § 11 of the Federal Reserve Act, the 1916 Act provided, without quotation marks,

[t]hat section thirteen be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows:

Ibid. Then followed within quotation marks several paragraphs that track the first five paragraphs of § 13 of the 1913 Act, the modifications generally expanding the powers of Federal Reserve banks. After the quotation marks closed, this appeared:

Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows: “No national banking association shall at any time be indebted, or in any way liable, to an amount exceeding the amount of its capital stock at such time actually paid in and remaining undiminished by losses or otherwise, except on account of demands of the nature following:
“First. Notes of circulation.
“Second. Moneys deposited with or collected by the association.
“Third. Bills of exchange or drafts drawn against money actually on deposit to the credit of the association, or due thereto.
“Fourth. Liabilities to the stockholders of the association for dividends and reserve profits.
“Fifth. Liabilities incurred under the provisions of the Federal reserve Act.
“The discount and rediscount and the purchase and sale by any Federal reserve bank of any bills receivable and of domestic and foreign bills of exchange, and of acceptances authorized by this Act, shall be subject to such restrictions, limitations, and regulations as may be imposed by the Federal Reserve Board.
“That in addition to the powers now vested by law in national banking associations organized under the laws of the United States any such association located and doing business in any place the population of which does not exceed five thousand inhabitants, as shown by the last preceding decennial census, may, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Comptroller of the Currency, act as the agent for any fire, life, or other insurance company authorized by the authorities of the State in which said bank is located to do business in said State....
“Any member bank may accept drafts or bills of exchange drawn upon it having not more than three months’ sight to run, exclusive of days of grace, drawn under regulations to be prescribed by the Federal Reserve Board by banks or bankers in foreign countries or dependencies or insular possessions of the United States for the purpose of furnishing dollar exchange as required by the usages of trade in the respective countries, dependencies, or insular possessions. Such drafts or bills may be acquired by Federal reserve banks in such amounts and subject to such regulations, restrictions, and limitations as may be prescribed by the Federal Reserve Board ....”

39 Stat. 753-754 The second-to-last paragraph just quoted is the first appearance of the provision eventually codified as 12 U. S. C. § 92. After the quotation marks closed, the 1916 Act went on to amend § 14 of the Federal Reserve Act, introducing the amendment with a phrase not surrounded by quotation marks and then placing the revised language of § 14 within quotation marks. 39 Stat. 754. The pattern was repeated for amendments of §§ 16, 24, and 25 of the Federal Reserve Act. Id., at 754-756.

The final relevant statute is the War Finance Corporation Act, ch. 45, 40 Stat. 506 (1918 Act), which in §20 amended Rev. Stat. § 5202 by, at least, adding a sixth exception to the indebtedness limit:

Sec. 20. Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows:
“Sec. 5202. No national banking association shall at any time be indebted, or in any way liable, to an amount exceeding the amount of its capital stock at such time actually paid in and remaining undiminished by losses or otherwise, except on account of demands of the nature following:
“Sixth. Liabilities incurred under the provisions of the War Finance Corporation Act.”

40 Stat. 512.

B

The argument that section 92 is no longer in force, adopted by the Court of Appeals and pressed here by respondents, is simply stated: the 1916 Act placed section 92 in Rev. Stat. § 5202, and the 1918 Act eliminated all of Rev. Stat. § 5202 except the indebtedness provision (to which it added a sixth exception), thus repealing section 92. Our discussion begins with the first premise of that argument, and there it ends, for we conclude with petitioners that the 1916 Act placed section 92 not in Rev. Stat. § 5202 but in § 13 of the Federal Reserve Act; since the 1918 Act did not touch § 13, it did not affect, much less repeal, section 92.

A reader following the path of punctuation of the 1916 Act would no doubt arrive at the opposite conclusion, that the statute added section 92 to Rev. Stat. § 5202. The 1916 Act reads, without quotation marks, Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows. 39 Stat. 753. That phrase is followed by a colon and then opening quotation marks; closing quotation marks do not appear until several paragraphs later, and the paragraph that was later codified as 12 U. S. C. § 92 is one of those within the opening and closing quotation marks. The unavoidable inference from familiar rules of punctuation is that the 1916 Act placed section 92 in Rev. Stat. § 5202.

A statute’s plain meaning must be enforced, of course, and the meaning of a statute will typically heed the commands of its punctuation. But a purported plain-meaning analysis based only on punctuation is necessarily incomplete and runs the risk of distorting a statute’s true meaning. Along with punctuation, text consists of words living “a communal existence,” in Judge Learned Hand’s phrase, the meaning of each word informing the others and “all in their aggregate tak[ing] their purport from the setting in which they are used.” NLRB v. Federbush Co., 121 F. 2d 954, 957 (CA2

1941). Over and over we have stressed that “[i]n expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.” United States v. Heirs of Boisdoré, 8 How. 113,122 (1849) (quoted in more than a dozen cases, most recently Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U. S. 26, 35 (1990)); see also King v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 502 U. S. 215, 221 (1991). No more than isolated words or sentences is punctuation alone a reliable guide for discovery of a statute’s meaning. Statutory construction “is a holistic endeavor,” United Savings Assn, of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365,371 (1988), and, at a minimum, must account for a statute’s full text, language as well as punctuation, structure, and subject matter.

Here, though the deployment of quotation marks in the 1916 Act points in one direction, all of the other evidence from the statute points the other way. It points so certainly, in our view, as to allow only the conclusion that the punctuation marks were misplaced and that the 1916 Act put section 92 not in Rev. Stat. §5202 but in §13 of the Federal Reserve Act.

The first thing to notice, we think, is the 1916 Act’s structure. The Act begins by stating [tjhat the Act entitled “Federal reserve Act,” approved [19IS], be, and is hereby, amended as follows. 39 Stat. 752. It then contains what appear to be seven directory phrases not surrounded by quotation marks, each of which is followed by one or more paragraphs within opening and closing quotation marks. These are the seven phrases (the numbers and citations in brackets are ours):

[1] At the end of section eleven insert a new clause as follows:
“...” [39 Stat. 752]
[2] That section thirteen be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows:
..” [39 Stat. 752]
[3] Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows:
..” [39 Stat. 753]
[4] That subsection (e) of section fourteen, be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows:
..” [39 Stat. 754]
[5] That the second paragraph of section sixteen be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows:
[39 Stat. 754]
[6] That section twenty-four be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows:
“..” [39 Stat. 754]
[7] That section twenty-five be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows:
[39 Stat. 755]

The paragraph eventually codified as 12 U. S. C. § 92 is one of several inside the quotation marks that open after the third phrase, which “hereby amended” Rev. Stat. §5202, and that close before the fourth, and the argument that the 1916 Act placed section 92 in Rev. Stat. § 5202 hinges on the assumption that the third phrase is a directory phrase like each of the others. But the structure of the Act supports another possibility, that the third phrase does not introduce a new amendment at all. Of the seven phrases, only the third does not in terms refer to a section of the Federal Reserve Act. Congress, to be sure, was free to take a detour from its work on the Federal Reserve Act to revise the Revised Statutes. But if Congress had taken that turn, one would expect some textual indication of the point where once its work on Rev. Stat. § 5202 was done it returned to revision of the Federal Reserve Act. None of the directory phrases that follow the phrase mentioning Rev. Stat. § 5202, however, refers back to the Federal Reserve Act. The failure of the fourth phrase, for example, to say something like “subsection (e) of section fourteen of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is hereby amended” suggests that the Congress never veered from its original course, that the object of the 1916 Act was singlemindedly to revise sections of the Federal Reserve Act, and that amending the Revised Statutes was beyond the 1916 law’s scope.

Further evidence that the 1916 Act amended only the Federal Reserve Act comes from the 1916 Act’s title: An Act To amend certain sections of the Act entitled “Federal reserve Act,” approved December twenty-third, nineteen hundred and thirteen. During this era the titles of statutes that revised pre-existing laws appear to have typically mentioned each of the laws they revised. See, e. g., Act of Sept. 26, 1918, ch. 177, 40 Stat. 967 (“An Act to amend and reenact sections four, eleven, sixteen, nineteen, and twenty-two of the Act approved December twenty-third, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and known as the Federal reserve Act, and sections fifty-two hundred and eight and fifty-two hundred and nine, Revised Statutes”). Cf. ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251 (“Federal Reserve Act”). Absent a comprehensive review it is impossible to know the extent of exceptions to this general rule, if any, and we would not cast aside the 1916 Act’s punctuation based solely on the Act’s title. Nevertheless, the omission of the Revised Statutes from the 1916 Act’s title does provide supporting evidence for the inference from the Act’s structure, that the Act did not amend Rev. Stat. § 5202. Cf. INS v. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc., 502 U. S. 183, 189 (1991) (titles within a statute “can aid in resolving an ambiguity in the legislation’s text”).

One must ask, however, why the 1916 Act stated that Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows, 39 Stat. 753, if it did not amend Rev. Stat. §5202. The answer emerges from comparing the 1916 Act with the statute that all agree it did amend, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and noticing that the identical directory phrase appeared in § 13 of the 1913 Act, which did amend Rev. Stat. §5202. As enacted in 1913, §13 contained several paragraphs granting powers to Federal Reserve banks; it then included a paragraph amending Rev. Stat. § 5202 (by adding a fifth exception to the indebtedness limit for “Pliabilities incurred under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act”), a paragraph that began Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows. 38 Stat. 264. The 1916 Act, in the portion following the phrase introducing a revision of § 13 of the 1913 Act, proceeded in the same manner. It contained several paragraphs granting powers to Federal Reserve banks, paragraphs that are somewhat revised versions of the ones that appeared in the 1913 Act, followed by the phrase introducing an amendment to Rev. Stat. § 5202 and then the language of Rev. Stat. § 5202 as it appeared in the 1913 Act. The similarity of the language of the 1916 and 1913 Acts suggests that, in order to amend § 13 in 1916, Congress restated the 1913 version of §13 in its entirety, revising the portion it intended to change and leaving the rest unaltered, including the portion that had amended Rev. Stat. § 5202.

In defending the Court of Appeals’s contrary conclusion that the 1916 Act amended Rev. Stat. §5202, respondents argue that any other reading would render meaningless the language in the 1916 Act that purports to amend that section of the Revised Statutes. But the 1916 Congress would have had good reason to carry forward that portion of the 1913 Act containing Rev. Stat. § 5202, even though in 1916 it did not intend to amend it any further. The 1916 Act revised § 13 of the 1913 Act by completely restating it with a mixture of old and new language (providing that § 13 is amended “to read as follows,” 39 Stat. 752), and a failure to restate Rev. Stat. § 5202 with its 1913 amendment could have been taken to indicate its repeal.

The final and decisive evidence that the 1916 Act placed section 92 in § 13 of the. Federal Reserve Act rather than Rev. Stat. §5202 is provided by the language and subject matter of section 92 and the paragraphs surrounding it, paragraphs within the same opening and closing quotation marks. In the paragraph preceding section 92, the 1916 Act granted the Federal Reserve Board authority to regulate the

discount and rediscount and the purchase and sale by any Federal reserve bank of any bills receivable and of domestic and foreign bills of exchange, and of acceptances authorized by this Act....

39 Stat. 753 (emphasis added). “[Tjhis Act” must mean the Federal Reserve Act, since it was §13 of the Federal Reserve Act that granted banks the authority to discount and rediscount. Use of “this Act” in the discount-and-rediscount paragraph is powerful proof that the 1916 Act placed that paragraph in the Act to which it necessarily refers, the Federal Reserve Act. That is crucial because section 92 travels together with the paragraphs that surround it; neither the language nor, certainly, the punctuation of the 1916 Act justifies separating them. Because the 1916 Act placed the paragraph preceding section 92 in §13 of the Federal Reserve Act, it follows that the 1916 Act placed section 92 there too.

We are not persuaded by respondents’ argument that the term “this Act” in the discount-and-rediscount paragraph is an antecedent reference to “the Federal reserve Act,” which is mentioned in the prior paragraph (in the fifth exception clause of Rev. Stat. § 5202). 39 Stat. 753; see also 38 Stat. 264 (1913 Act). If respondents are right, then the 1916 Act may be read as placing the discount-and-rediscount paragraph (and section 92, which necessarily accompanies it) in Rev. Stat. § 5202. But while the antecedent interpretation is arguable as construing “this Act” in the discount-andrediscount paragraph, that reading cannot attach to the other uses of “this Act” in the 1916 Act, see 39 Stat. 752, 753, 754, since none is within the vicinity of a reference to the Federal Reserve Act. Presumptively, “ ‘identical words used in different parte of the same act are intended to have the same meaning,’” Commissioner v. Keystone Consol. Industries, Inc., ante, at 159 (quoting Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U. S. 427, 433 (1932)), and since nothing rebuts that presumption here, we are of the view that each use of “this Act” in the 1916 Act refers to the Act in which the language is contained. Rather than aiding respondents, then, the single full reference to “the Federal reserve Act” in the portion of the 1916 Act that amended Rev. Stat. § 5202 cute against them. The fact that it was not repeated in the next paragraph confirms that the statute’s quotation of Rev. Stat. § 5202 had ended.

Finally, the subject matter of the diseount-and-rediscount paragraph (located, again, within the same opening and closing quotation marks as section 92) confirms that the 1916 Act placed section 92 in the Federal Reserve Act. The discount- and-rediscount paragraph subjects certain powers of Federal Reserve banks to regulation by the Federal Reserve Board. The logic of locating this provision in the Federal Reserve Act is obvious, whereas there would have been no reason for Congress to place it in Rev. Stat. §5202, which narrowly addressed the indebtedness of national banks, or even in the National Bank Act (from which Rev. Stat. §5202 derived), which concerned not public Federal Reserve banks or the Federal Reserve Board, but private national banks. Similarly, the paragraph following section 92, which authorizes Federal Reserve banks to acquire foreign drafts or bills of exchange from member banks and subjects transactions involving foreign acceptances to Federal Reserve Board regulations, fits far more comfortably with §13 of the Federal Reserve Act than with Rev. Stat. §5202. While we do not disagree with respondents insofar as they assert that Congress could have placed section 92, granting powers of insurance agency to some national banks (and without mentioning Federal Reserve banks or the Federal Reserve Board), in Rev. Stat. § 5202, Congress could also reasonably have dealt with the insurance provision as part of the Federal Reserve Act, which Congress had before it for amendment in 1916. There is no need to break that tie, however, because there is no way around the conclusion that the 1916 Act placed section 92 in the same statutory location as it must have placed its neighbors, in § 13 of the Federal Reserve Act.

Against the overwhelming evidence from the structure, language, and subject matter of the 1916 Act there stands only the evidence from the Act’s punctuation, too weak to trump the rest. In these unusual cases, we are convinced that the placement of the quotation marks in the 1916 Act was a simple scrivener’s error, a mistake made by someone unfamiliar with the law’s object and design. Courts, we have said, should “disregard the punctuation, or repunctuate, if need be, to render the true meaning of the statute.” Hammock v. Loan & Trust Co., 105 U.S. 77, 84-85 (1882) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The true meaning of the 1916 Act is clear beyond question, and so we repunctuate. The 1916 Act should be read as if closing quotation marks do not appear at the end of the paragraph before the phrase Section fifty-two hundred and two of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby amended so as to read as follows, 39 Stat. 753, and as if the opening quotation marks that immediately follow that phrase instead precede it. Accordingly, the 1916 Act placed within §13 of the Federal Reserve Act each of the paragraphs between the phrases that introduce the amendments to §§ 13 and 14 of the Federal Reserve Act, including the paragraph that was later codified as 12 U. S. C. § 92. Because the 1918 Act did not amend the Federal Reserve Act, it did not repeal section 92, despite the Court of Appeals’s conclusion to the contrary.

Section 92 remains in force, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed. These eases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered,.

       The note states that “[t]he provisions of this section, which were added to R. S. §5202 by act Sept. 7,1916, ch. 461, 39 Stat. 753, were omitted in the amendment of R. S. §5202 by act Apr. 5, 1918, ch. 45, §20, 40 Stat. 512, and therefore this section has been omitted from the Code.” 12 U. S. C. § 92 (1952 ed.) (note). We do not know what prompted the 1952 codifiers to reverse the judgment of their predecessors. The 1952 codifiers' decision, along with legislation that treated section 92 as valid law, apparently prompted a House of Representatives Committee to take a look at the status of section 92 in 1957. See Financial Institutions Act of 1957: Hearings on S. 1451 and H. R. 7206 before the House Committee on Banking and Currency, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2, pp. 989-990,1010-1025, 1036-1040, 1060-1071 (1957). After hearing conflicting testimony, the Committee took no action. See id., at 1090, 1199. Several years later, congressional staffers explored the issue again and concluded, with the codifiers, that Congress had repealed section 92 in 1918. See Consolidation of Bank Examining and Supervisory Functions: Hearings on H. R. 107 and H. R. 6885 before the Subcommittee on Bank Supervision and Insurance of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 391 (1965). Though the conclusion was published in a House Subcommittee Report, see ibid., neither the Subcommittee nor full Committee took up the matter, and at no time has Congress attempted to reenact what staff thought had been repealed.

       Courts too, including this one, have assumed the validity of section 92. See Commissioner v. First Security Bank of Utah, N. A., 405 U. S. 394, 401-402 (1972); Independent Ins. Agents of Am., Inc. v. Board of Governors of Fed. Reserve System, 266 U. S. App. D. C. 356, 360, n. 8, 835 F. 2d 1452, 1456, n. 8 (1987); First National Bank of Lamarque v. Smith, 610 F. 2d 1258, 1261, n. 6 (CA5 1980); Commissioner v. Morris Trust, 367 F. 2d 794, 795, n. 3 (CA4 1966); Genessee Trustee Corp. v. Smith, 102 F. 2d 125, 127 (CA6 1939); Washington Agency, Inc. v. Forbes, 309 Mich. 683, 684-686, 16 N. W. 2d 121, 121-122 (1944); Marshall Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Corder, 169 Va. 606, 609, 194 S. E. 734, 736 (1938); Greene v. First National Bank of Thief River Falls, 172 Minn. 310, 311-312, 215 N. W. 213, 213 (1927). But no court squarely addressed the question until the Court of Appeals below.

       When Congress has enacted a title of the Code as positive law (as it has done, for instance, with Title 11, the Bankruptcy Code, see § 101, 92 Stat. 2549), the text of the Code provides “legal evidence of the laws.” 1 U. S. C. § 204(a). But Congress has not enacted as positive law Title 12, in which section 92 for a time appeared.

       The 1874 edition of the Revised Statutes marked the last time Congress codified United States laws by reenacting all of them. An 1878 edition of the Revised Statutes updated the original Revised Statutes, but was not enacted as positive law. See Act of Mar. 9,1878, ch. 26, 20 Stat. 27; Act of Mar. 2,1877, ch. 82,19 Stat. 268. In 1919, the House Committee on the Revision of the Laws of the United States began work on what eventually became the United States Code, the first edition of which was published in 1926. See 44 Stat., pt. 1; Dwan & Feidler, 22 Minn. L. Rev., at 1018-1021.

       Because of the importance in these cases of the location of quotation marks, we depart from our ordinary style regarding block quotations and reproduce quotation marks only as they appear in the original materials. Here, for example, we have not opened and closed Rev. Stat. §5202 with quotation marks because none appear in the Revised Statutes. See also n. 6, infra.

       Because the placement of quotation marks is crucial in these eases, the quotations in the text from the 1916 and 1913 Acts appear in italics so as not to introduce quotation marks absent from the Statutes at Large. See n. 5, supra.

       Contrary to respondents’ argument, the Marshall Field doctrine does not preclude us from asking whether the statute means something other than what the punctuation dictates. The Marshall Field doctrine, indeed, is irrelevant to this case. In Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 672 (1892), the Court stated that a law consists of the “enrolled bill,” signed in open session by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, see also 1 U. S. C. § 106, but there is no doubt in these cases that the 1916 Act as printed in the Statutes at Large is identical to the enrolled bill. The Marshall Field doctrine concerns “‘the nature of the evidence’ the Court [may] consider in determining whether a bill had actually passed Congress,” United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U. S. 385, 391, n. 4 (1990) (quoting Marshall Field, supra, at 670); it places no limits on the evidence a court may consider in determining the meaning of a bill that has passed Congress.

       That the text within quotation marks follows the third directory phrase immediately after a space, rather than after a paragraph break, is significant. See n. 9, infra.

       A comparison of the layout of the two Acts supplies further support for the conclusion that the 1916 Act restated the 1913 Act in full, and did not newly amend Rev. Stat. §5202. With one exception, a paragraph break separates each of the introductory phrases in the 1916 Act from the text that follows within quotation marks. The exception is the phrase mentioning Rev. Stat. § 5202, the text within quotation marks following on the same line after only a space. That, significantly, is precisely the layout of the amendment to Rev. Stat. §5202 in § 13 of the 1913 Act.

       Respondents point out that it would not have been absurd for Congress to have amended Rev. Stat. §5202 in the middle of the 1916 Act. We agree, and of course there is no dispute that Congress three years earlier amended Rev. Stat. §5202 in the middle of the 1913 Act. Both drafting choices strike us as odd, though neither would be without plausible reason. The 1913 Congress might well have thought it convenient to add the exception from Rev. Stat. §5202’s indebtedness limit for “[l]iabilities incurred under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act” immediately after the language in the Federal Reserve Act that could result in the liabilities of concern, language that authorized national banks to accept certain drafts and bills of exchange. 38 Stat. 264. And the 1916 Congress could conceivably have found it similarly convenient to amend Rev. Stat. § 5202, which appeared in the Act it was amending at the time. The point of our analysis, however, is not that Congress could not possibly have amended Rev. Stat. § 5202 in the middle of the 1916 Act, but that the best reading of the Act, despite the punctuation marks, is that Congress did something else.

       Because we conclude that the meaning of the 1916 Act is plain, and because respondents do not argue that the law’s plain meaning is “demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters,” Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U. S. 564, 571 (1982), we need not consider the 1916 Act’s legislative history. Nor need we consider, again because the statute’s meaning is unambiguous, what if any weight to accord the longstanding assumption of both the Comptroller and the Federal Reserve Board that section 92 survived the 1918 amendment of Rev. Stat. §5202. See Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts, 492 U. S. 158, 171 (1989).
      We note finally, since respondents raise the point, that our remark in Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U. S. 497, 502 (1936), that the 1916 Act “amends [sections of the Federal Reserve Act], and §5202 of the Revised Statutes” is obviously not controlling, coming as it did in an opinion that did not present the question we decide in these cases. Were we to consider our past remarks about the statutes we discuss here, we would also have to account for Commissioner v. First Security Bank of Utah, N. A., 405 U. S., at 401-402, and n. 12, in which the Court treated section 92 as valid law, despite noting its absence from the United States Code. Neither case tells us anything helpful for resolving this one, though together they contain a valuable reminder about the need to distinguish an opinion’s holding from its dicta.


author: Justice Thomas

text:
    RAKE et al. v. WADE, TRUSTEE
    No. 92-621.
    Argued March 22, 1993
    Decided June 7, 1993

      David A. Carpenter argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was J. Edwin Poston.

      Lawrence A. G. Johnson argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

      Ronald J. Mann argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Bryson, Assistant Attorney General Gerson, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, and Alfred J. T. Byrne.

   Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to decide whether Chapter 13 debtors who cure a default on an oversecured home mortgage pursuant to § 1322(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 1322(b)(5), must pay postpetition interest on the arrearages. We conclude that the holder of the mortgage is entitled to such interest under §§ 506(b) and 1325(a)(5) of the Code.

I

Petitioners Donald and Linda Rake, petitioners Earnest and Mary Yell, and respondents Ronnie and Rosetta Han-non initiated three separate Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings in the Northern District of Oklahoma. In each ease the debtors were in arrears on a long-term promissory note assigned to respondent William J. Wade, trustee (hereinafter respondent). The notes allowed a $5 charge for each missed payment but did not provide for interest on arrearages. Payment on the notes was secured by a first mortgage on the principal residence owned by each pair of debtors. The mortgage instruments provided that in the event of a default by the debtors, the holder of the note (now respondent as assignee) had the right to declare the remainder of indebtedness due and payable and to foreclose on the property. Because the value of the residence owned by each pair of debtors exceeded the outstanding balance on the corresponding notes, respondent was an oversecured creditor.

In their Chapter 13 plans the debtors proposed to pay directly to respondent all future payments of principal and interest due on the notes. The plans also provided that the debtors would cure the default on the mortgages by paying off the arrearages, without interest, over the terms of the plans. Respondent objected to each plan, on the ground that he was entitled to attorney’s fees and interest on the arrearages. The Bankruptcy Court overruled respondent’s objections, and respondent appealed to the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, which consolidated the cases and affirmed. The District Court held that the Chapter 13 provisions relating to the “curing of defaults” — 11 U. S. C. §§ 1322(b)(2) and 1322(b)(5) — “do not alter the contract between the parties governing such matters as interest, if any, to be paid on arrearage,” and that allowing interest on arrearages would be “improper,” since the notes did not provide for it. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-24.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. Wade v. Hannon, 968 P. 2d 1036 (1992). The court held that § 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, as interpreted in United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235 (1989), entitles an oversecured creditor to postpetition interest on arrearages and other charges paid off under a Chapter 13 plan, “even if the mortgage instruments are silent on the subject and state law would not require interest to be paid.” 968 F. 2d, at 1042. The Tenth Circuit relied in part on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in In re Colgrove, 771 F. 2d 119 (1985), which reached the same result but rested its decision on § 1325(a)(5) as well as § 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Four other Courts of Appeals have held that under the “cure” and “modification” provisions of § 1322(b) a mortgagee is not entitled to interest on home mortgage arrearages. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 506 U. S. 972 (1992).

II

Petitioners’ Chapter 13 plans proposed to “cure” the defaults on respondent’s oversecured home mortgages by establishing repayment schedules for the arrearages. Three interrelated provisions of the Bankruptcy Code determine whether respondent is entitled to interest on those arrearages: §§ 506(b), 1322(b), and 1325(a)(5).

Section 506(b), which applies to Chapter 13 proceedings pursuant to 11 U. S. C. § 103(a), provides that holders of oversecured claims are “allowed” postpetition interest on their claims. In Ron Pair we held that the right to postpetition interest under § 506(b) is “unqualified” and exists regardless of whether the agreement giving rise to the claim provides for interest. 489 U. S., at 241. It is generally recognized that the interest allowed by § 506(b) will accrue until payment of the secured claim or until the effective date of the plan. See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 506.05, p. 506-43, and n. 5c (15th ed. 1993) (hereinafter Collier). Respondent concedes, and his amicus the United States agrees, that because § 506(b) “has the effect of allowing a claim to the creditor, ... the rights granted under Section 506(b) are relevant only until confirmation of the plan.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 11, n. 7. Accord, Tr. of Oral Arg. 24, 34. Petitioners also agree that § 506(b) applies only from the date of filing through the confirmation date. Brief for Petitioners 10,13.

Two paragraphs of § 1322(b) are relevant here: §§ 1322(b) (2) and 1322(b)(5). Section 1322(b)(2) authorizes debtors to modify the rights of secured claim holders, but it provides protection for home mortgage lenders by creating a specific “no modification” exception for holders of claims secured only by a lien on the debtor’s principal residence. Section 1322(b)(5) expressly authorizes debtors to cure any defaults on a long-term debt, such as a mortgage, and to maintain payments on the debt during the life of the plan. Under § 1322(b)(5), a plan may provide for the curing of any defaults and the maintenance of payments on a long-term debt “notwithstanding” § 1322(b)(2)’s prohibition against modifications of the rights of home mortgage lenders.

The final provision bearing on this case — § 1325(a)(5)— states that “with respect to each allowed secured claim provided for by the plan,” one of three requirements must be satisfied before the plan may be confirmed: (1) the holder of the claim has accepted the plan, § 1325(b)(5)(A); (2) the debtor surrenders the property securing such claim to the secured creditor, § 1325(a)(5)(C); or (3) the holder of the secured claim retains the lien securing such claim, § 1325(a) (5) (B)(i), and “the value, as of the effective date of the plan, of property to be distributed under the plan on account of such claim is not less than the allowed amount of such claim,” § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii). Thus, unless the creditor accepts the plan or the debtor surrenders the collateral to the creditor, § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) guarantees that property distributed under a plan on account of a claim, including deferred cash payments in satisfaction of the claim, see 5 Collier ¶ 1325.06[4][b][ii], must equal the present dollar value of such claim as of the confirmation date. Petitioners, respondent, and the United States agree that “[s]ection 1325(a)(5)(B) requires all holders of allowed secured claims to be paid the present value of such claims, whieh implies the payment of interest.” Reply Brief for Petitioners 5. Accord, Brief for Respondent 16-17; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 11-12, and n. 8.

Ill

Although petitioners and respondent generally agree as to the requirements of §§ 506(b) and 1325(a)(5), petitioners argue that those provisions do not apply when the debtor cures a default on a home mortgage under § 1322(b)(5). Some courts have construed the “cure” and “modification” provisions of § 1322(b) so broadly as to render §§ 506(b) and 1325(a)(5) inapplicable to the curing of defaults on home mortgages. E. g., Landmark Financial Services v. Hall, 918 P. 2d 1150, 1153-1155 (CA4 1990). Petitioners contend that this is precisely what § 1322(b) requires.

A

Turning first to § 506(b), petitioners concede that respondent holds an oversecured claim, which includes arrearages and that “ ‘an oversecured creditor is ordinarily entitled to an allowance for postpetition interest on its secured claim under Chapter 13.’” Reply Brief for Petitioners 2 (quoting In re Laguna, 944 F. 2d 542, 544 (CA9 1991) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 503 U. S. 966 (1992)). They argue, however, that § 1322(b)(5) “operate[s] to the exclusion of the provisions of § 506(b),” Brief for Petitioners 9, and that § 506(b) thus “does not require the payment of . . . preeonfirmation interest on home mortgage arrearages in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings,” Reply Brief for Petitioners 1. Because § 1322(b)(5) does not expressly negate § 506(b), petitioners suggest that “‘[d]espite some broad language in Ron Pair, . . . § 506(b) is inapplicable in the context of [Chapter 13] mortgage cures.’” Brief for Petitioners 13 (quoting Hall, supra, at 1154).

Petitioners’ interpretation of §§ 506(b) and 1322(b)(5) does not comport with the terms of those provisions. Under § 506(b) the holder of an overseeured claim is allowed interest on his claim to the extent of the value of the collateral. Section 506(b) “directs that postpetition interest be paid on all overseeured claims,” Ron Pair, 489 U. S., at 245 (emphasis added), and, as the parties acknowledge, such interest accrues as part of the allowed claim from the petition date until the confirmation or effective date of the plan. See supra, at 468. The arrearages owed on the mortgages held by respondent are plainly part of respondent’s overseeured claims. Under the unqualified terms of § 506(b), therefore, respondent is entitled to preconfirmation interest on these arrearages. Where the statutory language is clear, our “‘sole function ... is to enforce it according to its terms.’” Ron Pair, supra, at 241 (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 485 (1917)). Accord, Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 253-254 (1992).

Section 1322(b)(5), on the other hand, states that a Chapter 13 plan may “provide for the curing of any default and the maintenance of payments” on certain claims. While § 1322(b)(5) authorizes a Chapter 13 plan to provide for payments on arrearages to effectuate a cure after the effective date of the plan, nothing in that provision dictates the terms of the cure. In particular, § 1322(b)(5) provides no indication that the allowed amount of the arrearages cured under the plan may not include interest otherwise available as part of the overseeured claim under § 506(b). We generally avoid construing one provision in a statute so as to suspend or supersede another provision. To avoid “denying] effect to a part of a statute,” we accord “ ‘significance and effect... to every word.’” Ex parte Public Nat. Bank of New York, 278 U. S. 101, 104 (1928) (quoting Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U.S. 112, 115 (1879)). Construing §§ 506(b) and 1322(b)(5) together, and giving effect to both, we conclude that § 1322(b)(5) authorizes a debtor to cure a default on a home mortgage by making payments on arrearages under a Chapter 13 plan, and that where the mortgagee’s claim is over-secured, § 506(b) entitles the mortgagee to preconfirmation interest on such arrearages.

B

Petitioners make virtually the same argument with respect to postconfirmation interest under § 1325(a)(5). Petitioners concede that under § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) secured creditors are entitled to the “present value of [their] claims, which implies the payment of interest.” Reply Brief for Petitioners 5. Petitioners contend, however, that § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) “applies only to secured claims which have been modified in the Chapter 13 plan, and which, by reason of Section 1322(b)(2), may not include home mortgages.” Ibid. Since nothing in the Code states that § 1325(a)(5) applies only to “modified” claims, petitioners turn to those Court of Appeals decisions that have held that “the legislative history indicates that § 1322(b) was intended to create a special exception to § 1325(a)(5)(B).” In re Terry, 780 F. 2d 894, 896-897 (CA11 1985). Accord, In re Laguna, supra, at 544-545; Hall, 918 F. 2d, at 1154-1155; Appeal of Capps, 836 F. 2d 773, 776 (CA3 1987).

Petitioners’ interpretation of §§ 1322(b) and 1325(a)(5) is refated by the plain language of the Code. Section 1325(a)(5) applies by its terms to “each allowed secured claim provided for by the plan.” The most natural reading of the phrase to “provid[e] for by the plan” is to “make a provision for” or “stipulate to” something in a plan. See, e. g., American Heritage Dictionary 1053 (10th ed. 1981) (“provide for” defined as “to make a stipulation or condition”). Petitioners’ plans clearly “provided for” respondent’s home mortgage claims by establishing repayment schedules for the satisfaction of the arrearages portion of those claims. As authorized by § 1322(b)(5), the plans essentially split each of respondent’s secured claims into two separate claims — the underlying debt and the arrearages. While payments of principal and interest on the underlying debts were simply “maintained” according to the terms of the mortgage documents during the pendency of petitioners’ cases, each plan treated the arrearages as a distinct claim to be paid off within the life of the plan pursuant to repayment schedules established by the plans. Thus, the arrearages, which are a part of respondent’s home mortgage claims, were “provided for” by the plans, and respondent is entitled to interest on them under § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii).

Other provisions of Chapter 13 containing the phrase “provided for by the plan” make clear that petitioners’ plans provided for respondent’s home mortgage claim. See United Savings Assn. of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 371 (1988) (statutory terms are often “clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme — because the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes [their] meaning clear, or because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law”) (citation omitted). Title 11 U. S. C. § 1328(a) (1988 ed., Supp. Ill), for example, utilizes the phrase “provided for by the plan” in dealing with the discharge of debts under Chapter 13. As used in § 1328(a), that phrase is commonly understood to mean that a plan “makes a provision” for, “deals with,” or even “refers to” a claim. See 5 Collier ¶ 1328.01, at 1328-9. In addition, § 1328(a) unmistakably contemplates that a plan “provides for” a claim when the plan cures a default and allows for the maintenance of regular payments on that claim, as authorized by § 1322(b)(5). Section 1328(a) states that “all debts provided for by the plan” are dischargeable, and then lists three exceptions. One type of claim that is “provided for by the plan” yet excepted from discharge under § 1328(a) is a claim “provided for under section 1322(b)(5) of this title.” § 1328(a)(1). If claims that are subject to § 1322(b)(5) were not “provided for by the plan,” there would be no reason to make an exception for them in § 1328(a)(1). Under § 1325(a)(5), therefore, respondent is entitled to the present value of arrearages paid off under the terms of the plans as an element of an “allowed secured claim provided for by the plan.”

IV

We hold that respondent is entitled to preconfirmation and postconfirmation interest on arrearages paid off under petitioners’ plans. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

So ordered.

       Because the Hannons did not join the petition for certiorari, they are respondents in this Court under this Court’s Rule 12.4.

        In re Laguna, 944 F. 2d 542, 545 (CA9 1991), cert. denied, 503 U. S. 966 (1992); Landmark Financial Services v. Hall, 918 F. 2d 1150, 1153-1155 (CA4 1990); Appeal of Capps, 836 F. 2d 773, 776 (GA3 1987); In re Terry, 780 F. 2d 894, 895-896 (CA11 1985).

       By “home mortgage” we mean an allowed claim secured only by a security interest in the debtor's principal residence. See 11 U. S. C. § 1322(b)(2).

       Section 506(b) states: “To the extent that an allowed secured claim is secured by property the value of which, after any recovery under subsection (c) of this section, is greater than the amount of such claim, there shall be allowed to the holder of such claim, interest on such claim, and any reasonable fees, costs, or charges provided for under the agreement under which such claim arose.” Under this provision, an oversecured creditor is entitled to postpetition interest on its claim only “to the extent that such interest, when added to the principal amount of the claim,” does not “exceed the value of the collateral.” United Savings Assn. of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 372 (1988).

       Section 1322(b)(2) provides that a Chapter 13 plan may “modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence, or of holders of unsecured claims, or leave unaffected the rights of holders of any class of claims.”

       Section 1322(b)(5) states that “notwithstanding” § 1322(b)(2), a plan may “provide for the curing of any default within a reasonable time and maintenance of payments while the case is pending on any unsecured claim or secured claim on which the last payment is due after the date on which the final payment under the plan is due.”

       Respondent is the holder of an allowed oversecured claim in each pair of petitioners’ cases, and this claim includes “arrearages on the note and mortgage.” App. 6, 22.

       When a claim is paid off pursuant to a stream of future payments, a creditor receives the “present value” of its claim only if the total amount of the deferred payments includes the amount of the underlying claim plus an appropriate amount of interest to compensate the creditor for the decreased value of the claim caused by the delayed payments. This generally involves a determination of an appropriate discount rate and a discounting of the stream of deferred payments back to the present dollar value of the claim at confirmation. See 5 Collier V 1325.06[4][b][iii][B]. Because the issue is not presented in this case, we express no view on the appropriate rate of interest that debtors must pay on arrearages cured pursuant to § 1322(b)(5).

       Petitioners’ argument that "modified” claims cannot include home mortgage claims that have been “cured” does not withstand scrutiny. When a plan cures a default and reinstates payments on a claim, the creditor’s contractual rights arising from the default — which in this case included the right to declare all payments due and payable, accelerate the debt, possess the property, collect rents generated by the property, and foreclose on the property, see App. 14-15, 29-30 — are abrogated and therefore “modified.” These modifications are allowed under § 1322 (b)(5) “notwithstanding” the fact that § 1322(b)(2) generally prohibits the modification of the rights of home mortgage holders. Petitioners’ construction of § 1322(b)(2) also leads to the incongruous result that only home mortgage claims would be denied the benefits of § 1325(a)(5). By prohibiting modifications of the rights of holders of home mortgage claims, Congress could not have intended, in our view, to afford the holders of these claims less protection than the holders of other secured claims.

       Section 1328(a) provides:
      “As soon as practicable after completion by the debtor of all payments under the plan, unless the court approves a written waiver of discharge executed by the debtor after the order for relief under this chapter, the court shall grant the debtor a discharge of all debts provided for by the plan or disallowed under section 502 of this title, except any debt—
      “(1) provided for under section 1322(b)(5) of this title;
      “(2) of the kind specified in paragraph (5) or (8) of section 523(a) or 523(a)(9) of this title; or
      “(3) for restitution included in a sentence on the debtor’s conviction of a crime.”

       Section 1328(a)(1) refers to “debts” rather than claims, but a debt under the Code is simply “liability on a claim.” 11 U. S. C. § 101(12) (1988 ed., Supp. III).

       Petitioners suggest that by allowing postpetition interest on arrearages “and other charges,” the Tenth Circuit misconstrued United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235 (1989). Brief for Petitioners 21. We disagree. Ron Pair held that under § 506(b) a creditor is entitled to postpetition interest on its “overseeured claim.” 489 U. S., at 241. The arrearages portion of respondent’s oversecured claims in this case included the amounts past due on the notes and the “other charges” to which the Tenth Circuit referred. App. 6,22.