Statutes Explained: Plain-English Guides to Major US Laws
When a court filing, a news story, or a form cites a statute by number, the number alone tells you almost nothing. These guides translate the most-searched statute citations into plain English: what each law actually says, how courts have applied it, and what it means for you in practice.
Every explainer on this page is grounded in recordinglaw.com's own legal record. Each page carries the official statutory text we hold on file, live citation statistics from our index of more than 10 million court decisions, the leading cases that shaped the statute, and cross-references to the related laws it works alongside.
Federal Statutes
42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Civil Rights Lawsuits. The statute behind most lawsuits against police officers and state and local officials for constitutional violations: who can be sued, qualified immunity, and what a claim takes.
18 U.S.C. § 922 - Federal Gun Law. The federal firearm statute: the nine prohibited-person categories, background checks, straw purchases, and the fast-moving Second Amendment challenges reshaping it.
18 U.S.C. § 2511 - The Federal Wiretap Act's Core Section. The one-party-consent rule for recording calls and conversations, the exceptions, and the criminal and civil penalties for illegal interception.
5 U.S.C. § 552 - FOIA. The Freedom of Information Act: how to request federal records, the nine exemptions, deadlines, fees, and appeals.
15 U.S.C. § 1681 - The Fair Credit Reporting Act. Credit reports, background checks, the seven-year rule, disputes, and what a consumer can recover when a company breaks the rules.
11 U.S.C. § 362 - The Bankruptcy Automatic Stay. The instant protection that stops collections, foreclosures, and lawsuits the moment a bankruptcy case is filed, and its limits for repeat filers.
47 U.S.C. § 227 - The TCPA. The federal robocall and spam-text law, including the 500 dollar per-violation private right of action.
45 C.F.R. § 164.512 - HIPAA Disclosures Without Authorization. When health providers may share medical records without patient permission: law enforcement, courts, public health, and more.
State Statutes
California Penal Code § 632 - Eavesdropping and Recording. California's two-party consent rule for confidential conversations, its penalties, and the civil lawsuits it powers.
Ohio Revised Code § 149.43 - Ohio Public Records. Ohio's public records act: what is public, the exemptions, and the two enforcement paths when an office refuses.
Look Up Any Law We Track
These guides cover the statutes people search most, but the underlying legal record is far larger. Search the full statute library to find the text of state and federal laws across all 50 states.
Disclaimer
These guides provide general legal information about the statutes they cover, verified against primary sources on the dates noted on each page. They are not legal advice and do not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about a specific situation, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.
Last updated: August 12, 2026.
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Code of Federal Regulations Title 45
§ 164.512Uses and disclosures for which an authorization or opportunity to agree or object is not required.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
Except as provided by § 164.502(a)(5)(iii), a covered entity may use or disclose protected health information without the written authorization of the individual, as described in § 164.508, or the opportunity for the individual to agree or object as described in § 164.510, in the situations covered by this section, subject to the applicable requirements of this section and § 164.509. When the covered entity is required by this section to inform the individual of, or when the individual may agree to, a use or disclosure permitted by this section, the covered entity's information and the individual's agreement may be given verbally. (a) Standard: Uses and disclosures required by law. (1) A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information to the extent that such use or disclosure is required by law and the use or disclosure complies with and is limited to the relevant requirements of such law. (2) A covered entity must meet the requirements described in paragraph (c), (e), or (f) of this section for uses or disclosures required by law. (b) Standard: Uses and disclosures for public health activities —(1) Permitted uses and disclosures.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 580 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2004, 362 F.3d 923)“…f this subchapter.”) (emphasis added). Of relevance here is 45 C.F.R. 164.512(e)(l)(i), which authorizes the disclosu…”
- Law v. Zuckerman (District Court, D. Maryland 2004, 307 F. Supp. 2d 705)“…patient’s health information may be disclosed pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 164.512 (e)(l)(i), which states that disclosure…”
- Bayne v. Provost (District Court, N.D. New York 2005, 359 F. Supp. 2d 234)“…h information may be disclosed or disseminated pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 164.512 . See, supra, 2004 WL 555…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 11
§ 362Automatic stayIn forcecited in 53 of our articles
Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a petition filed under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or an application filed under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of— the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title; the enforcement, against the debtor or against property of the estate, of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the case under this title; any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate; any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against property of the estate; any act to create, perfect, or enforce against property of the debtor any lien to the extent that such lien secures a claim that arose before the commencement of the case under this title; any act to…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 19,606 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. (1988) held that an undersecured creditor gets no interest as adequate protection under 362(d)(1) for delay caused by the stay. NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco (1984) applied 362(a) in requiring claims be pursued through bankruptcy administration, not suit.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Clinton v. Jones (Supreme Court of the United States 1997, 520 U.S. 681)“…ublic interests. Brief for Petitioner 34-36. See, e. g., 11 U. S. C. § 362 (litigation against debtor stayed upon…”
- United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. (Supreme Court of the United States 1988, 484 U.S. 365)✓An undersecured lender on a Houston apartment project sought monthly payments as the price of continuing the § 362(a) automatic stay; the Court held that 'adequate protection' under § 362(d)(1) does not entitle it to interest for the delay in foreclosing on its collateral.
- Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1987, 481 U.S. 1)“…if it were forced to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. 11 U. S. C. §362 . Texaco, or its successor in interest,…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 15
§ 1681Congressional findings and statement of purposeIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
The Congress makes the following findings: The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system. An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers. Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers. There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer’s right to privacy.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 3,711 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts cite 1681(a)'s findings for the Act's purpose and decide under its operative sections. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016) held that a bare procedural FCRA violation divorced from concrete harm does not satisfy Article III, and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021) applied that rule to hold 6,332 class members lacked standing.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (Supreme Court of the United States 2016, 578 U.S. 330)✓Robins alleged Spokeo's people-search profile carried false information about him and sued under the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.; the Court held a bare procedural violation divorced from concrete harm does not satisfy Article III injury in fact, and remanded.
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (Supreme Court of the United States 2021, 594 U.S. 413)✓TransUnion flagged 8,185 consumers as potential matches to a Treasury terrorist list; suing under the FCRA, only the 1,853 whose misleading reports actually reached third parties were held concretely harmed, so the other 6,332 lacked Article III standing for damages.
- Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2010, 605 F.3d 665)✓Police had Pintos's car towed and the towing company transferred its deficiency claim to a collection agency, which pulled her Experian report; the Ninth Circuit held § 1681b(a)(3)(A) gave no permissible purpose, since neither credit she sought nor a judgment debt was involved.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 415 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 922Unlawful actsIn forcecited in 61 of our articles
It shall be unlawful— for any person— except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; or except a licensed importer or licensed manufacturer, to engage in the business of importing or manufacturing ammunition, or in the course of such business, to ship, transport, or receive any ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce; for any importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector licensed under the provisions of this chapter to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm to any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, except that— this paragraph and subsection (b)(3) shall not be held to preclude a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector from returning a firearm or replacement firearm of the same kind and type to a person from whom it was received; and this paragraph shall not be held to preclude an individual from mailing a firearm owned in compliance…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 40,024 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Section 922(g)(1) bars a felon from possessing a firearm, and the Supreme Court cases in this line turn on sentencing, not on the ban. Taylor v. United States (1990) and Shepard v. United States (2005) held that whether prior convictions enhance a 922(g) sentence under 924(e) is decided from offense elements and limited plea records.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Booker (Supreme Court of the United States 2004, 543 U.S. 220)“…e Johnson with one crime (say, illegal gun possession, see 18 U. S. C. § 922 (g)) and Jackson with another (say, ban…”
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1998, 523 U.S. 224)“…cidivism an offense element in such circumstances. But cf. 18 U. S. C. § 922 (g)(1) (prior felony conviction an elem…”
- Taylor v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1990, 495 U.S. 575)✓Taylor pleaded guilty to felon-in-possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and had two Missouri burglary convictions; the Court held that 'burglary' in the § 924(e) enhancement attached to a § 922(g) conviction means generic burglary judged by the prior statute's elements.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 42
§ 1983Civil action for deprivation of rightsIn forcecited in 50 of our articles
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 282,365 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal (Supreme Court of the United States 2009, 556 U.S. 662)“…its brought against state officials under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983.” Hartman, 547 U. S., at 254, n. 2. Cf.…”
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett (Supreme Court of the United States 1986, 477 U.S. 317)“…policeman as she left. Petitioner brought an action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 claiming that the refusal of service a…”
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs. (Supreme Court of the United States 1978, 436 U.S. 658)“…decided less than two decades ago. Focusing new light on 42 U. S. C. § 1983 , that decision widened access to the f…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 47
§ 227Restrictions on use of telephone equipmentIn forcecited in 37 of our articles
As used in this section— The term “automatic telephone dialing system” means equipment which has the capacity— to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and to dial such numbers. The term “established business relationship”, for purposes only of subsection (b)(1)(C)(i), shall have the meaning given the term in section 64.1200 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2003, except that— such term shall include a relationship between a person or entity and a business subscriber subject to the same terms applicable under such section to a relationship between a person or entity and a residential subscriber; and an established business relationship shall be subject to any time limitation established pursuant to paragraph (2)(G)).1 So in original. Second closing parenthesis probably should not appear.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 3,209 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021) held that to qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system under Section 227(a)(1), equipment must have the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce the numbers it dials. Nicole Blow v. Bijora, Inc. (2017) applied the prior express consent defense to promotional texts.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (Supreme Court of the United States 2016, 577 U.S. 153)✓A marketing firm hired by the Navy had a subcontractor text a recruiting message to 100,000 phones, reaching a man who never consented; the Supreme Court held a contractor gets no derivative sovereign immunity from TCPA suit when it violates the Act and the Navy's orders.
- Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Stevens & Ricci Inc (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2016, 835 F.3d 388)✓An insured let an advertiser send 18,879 unsolicited fax ads, drawing a $2 million TCPA class judgment; the Third Circuit read the TCPA as protecting seclusion, not secrecy, so the faxes were no covered 'advertising injury' and the insurer need not pay the judgment.
- Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (Supreme Court of the United States 2021, 592 U.S. 395)✓Facebook texted login alerts to a man who had no account and never gave it his number; the Supreme Court held a device is an autodialer under 227(a)(1) only if it uses a random or sequential number generator to store or produce numbers, excluding Facebook's system.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 5
§ 552Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedingsIn forcecited in 36 of our articles
Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows: Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public— descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions; statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available; rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations; substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 11,434 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (1989) held categorically that releasing a private citizen's FBI rap sheet to a third party is an unwarranted privacy invasion under Exemption 7(C). Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. (1980) applied Exemption 3, 552(b)(3).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society (Supreme Court of the United States 1975, 421 U.S. 240)“…Pub. L. 93-502, § 1 (b) (2), 88 Stat. 1561 (amending 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a)); Packers and Stockyards Act, 42…”
- Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1980, 447 U.S. 102)✓Consumer groups filed FOIA requests for accident reports manufacturers had given the CPSC as confidential; the Court held that the Consumer Product Safety Act's section 6(b)(1) applies to FOIA requests and that its standards fall within Exemption 3, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3).
- Taylor v. Sturgell (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 880)✓An aircraft enthusiast made a FOIA request for FAA records after a friend's identical suit failed; the Court disapproved preclusion by 'virtual representation' and read § 552(a)(3)(A) as directing agencies to release records to the requesting person, not the public at large.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- United States Code (Office of the Law Revision Counsel)(uscode.house.gov).gov
- Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR)(ecfr.gov).gov
- California Legislative Information (official statute text)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Ohio Revised Code (official)(codes.ohio.gov).gov