[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-149875-en":3,"doc-seo-149875-105":30,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":95},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":4,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":20,"is_downloadable":20,"audit_status":20,"page_count":21,"language":22,"language_code":23,"site_id":24,"html_lang":23,"table_of_contents":25,"faqs":26,"seo_title":27,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":28,"read_time":29},149875,1099513958762,"Logic","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/1000023916a998db790?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1784791008015729253",8,"Research & Report","Lifting the Blindfold from Lady Justice - Allowing Judges to See the Structure in the Judicial Code","The article argues that U.S. Congress has long required federal judges to disregard the plainly visible structure of the Judicial Code when interpreting statutes, including statutory sections’ placement within logically organized chapters and their identifying headings under the 1948 revision of Title 28. Using statutory interpretation theory and two case examples, it shows how blindness to structure produces unjust and inconsistent outcomes, undermining faithful judicial interpretation of statutory law. It then proposes repealing the provision that blocks structural reasoning and emphasizes structural context as a renewed tool for interpreting the Code.","Florida Law Review  \n\n| Volume 62  Issue 2 | Article 4 |\n| --- | --- |\n| April 2010\u003Cbr>Lifting the Blindfold from Lady Justice: Allowing Judges to Seethe Structure in the Judicial Code\u003Cbr>Gregory C. Sisk\u003Cbr>Follow this and additional works at: [https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr](https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr)\u003Cbr> Part of the Law Commons |  |\n\nRecommended Citation  \nGregory C. Sisk, Lifting the Blindfold from Lady Justice: Allowing Judges to See the Structure in the Judicial Code, 62 Fla. L. Rev. 457 (2010) .  \nAvailable at: [https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol62/iss2/4](https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol62/iss2/4)  \nThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized editor of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, [please contact](please contact kaleita@law.ufl.edu)[ kaleita@law.ufl.edu](please contact kaleita@law.ufl.edu).  \nLIFTING THE BLINDFOLD FROM LADY JUSTICE: ALLOWING JUDGES TO SEE THE STRUCTURE IN THE JUDICIAL CODE  \n*  \nGregory C. Sisk  \nI. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................457  \nII. INTERPRETING STATUTES IN CONTEXT AND THE 1948  \nSTRUCTURAL REVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE...........................459  \nIII. UNJUST AND INCONSISTENT RESULTS WHEN THE JUDICIARY IS SUPPOSEDLY BLINDED TO STATUTORY STRUCTURE: TWO CASE EXAMPLES ....................................................................................465  \nA. Declining to Respect the Codification of the Statute of Limitations for the Court of Federal Claims in a Non-Jurisdictional Chapter .................................................467  \nB. Honoring the Jurisdictional and Non-Jurisdictional Classification of Statutory Sections in the Federal Tort Claims Act ....................................................................472  \nIV. SUBVERTING FAITHFUL JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY LAW .........................................................................477  \nV. MAKING THE CASE FOR REPEAL OF LEGISLATION THAT BLINDS THE COURTS TO STRUCTURAL REALITY ..........................484  \nVI. STRUCTURAL CONTEXT AS A REINVIGORATED TOOL TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE .......................................488  \nVII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................492  \nI. INTRODUCTION  \nTwo centuries ago, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that “[w]here the mind labours to discover the design of the legislature, it seizes everything from which aid can be derived.”1 Yet for more than half a century, Congress has forbidden judges to use the evidence before their own eyes when interpreting the federal Judicial Code. In what will come as a surprise to most readers, Congress has directed judges to ignore the plainly visible structure of logically organized parts and  \n* Orestes A. Brownson Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) . For valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this Article that  \nstrengthened the analysis, but retaining full responsibility for substance of the final version, the  \nauthor thanks Judith Resnik, Kevin Clermont, David Shapiro, Thomas Mengler, Philip Frickey,  \nand Jay Tidmarsh.  \n1. United States v. Fisher, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch.) 358, 386 (1805) .  \n457  \nPublished by UF Law Scholarship Repository, 2010 1  \n458 FLORIDA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 62  \nchapters with their identifying headings into which statutory sections have been placed through the 1948 enactment of Title 28 of the United States Code.2  \nIn an uncodified provision, Congress instructed that “[n]o inference of a legislative construction is to be drawn” by the location of a section in a particular chapter in Title 28 nor by the “catchlines” for parts, chapters, and sections.3 Thus, this little-known and half-hidden section casts the the Judicial Code’s brightly-lit profile into jurisprudential darknes","cbCairTz6JK8RjKo","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCairTz6JK8RjKo","pdf",334128,1,37,"English","en",105,"# I. INTRODUCTION\n# II. INTERPRETING STATUTES IN CONTEXT AND THE 1948 STRUCTURAL REVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE\n# III. UNJUST AND INCONSISTENT RESULTS WHEN THE JUDICIARY IS SUPPOSEDLY BLINDED TO STATUTORY STRUCTURE\n## A. Declining to Respect the Codification of the Statute of Limitations for the Court of Federal Claims\n## B. Honoring the Jurisdictional and Non-Jurisdictional Classification of Statutory Sections in the Federal Tort Claims Act\n# IV. SUBVERTING FAITHFUL JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY LAW\n# V. MAKING THE CASE FOR REPEAL OF LEGISLATION THAT BLINDS THE COURTS TO STRUCTURAL REALITY\n# VI. STRUCTURAL CONTEXT AS A REINVIGORATED TOOL TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE\n# VII. CONCLUSION","[{\"question\":\"What does the article mean by “lifting the blindfold” for judges?\",\"answer\":\"It refers to removing the legislative rule that forbids judges from using the code’s visible structure when interpreting statutes, so judges can consider how provisions are organized and labeled.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the 1948 revision of Title 28 relate to the article’s argument?\",\"answer\":\"The article explains that the 1948 enactment structured statutory sections into chapters with identifying headings, and Congress later instructed judges not to draw inferences from that location or the “catchlines”.\"},{\"question\":\"What problems does the article identify when courts ignore statutory structure?\",\"answer\":\"It argues this produces unjust and inconsistent results by preventing courts from relying on the statutory framework, illustrated through two case examples under the statute of limitations and the Federal Tort Claims Act.\"},{\"question\":\"What solution does the article propose?\",\"answer\":\"It calls for repealing the legislation that blinds courts to structural reality and promotes structural context as an effective tool for interpreting the Judicial Code.\"}]","Lifting the Blindfold from Lady Justice - Allowing Judges to See the Structure in the Judicial Code | PDF",1787808862,93,{"code":4,"msg":31,"data":32},"ok",{"site_id":24,"language":23,"slug":33,"title":13,"keywords":34,"description":14,"schema_data":35,"social_meta":90,"head_meta":92,"extra_data":94,"updated_unix":28},"lifting-the-blindfold-from-lady-justice-allowing-judges-to-see-the-structure-in-the-judicial-code","",{"@graph":36,"@context":89},[37,54,68],{"@type":38,"itemListElement":39},"BreadcrumbList",[40,44,48,51],{"item":41,"name":42,"@type":43,"position":20},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":45,"name":46,"@type":43,"position":47},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":49,"name":12,"@type":43,"position":50},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":52,"name":13,"@type":43,"position":53},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/lifting-the-blindfold-from-lady-justice-allowing-judges-to-see-the-structure-in-the-judicial-code/149875/",4,{"url":52,"name":13,"@type":55,"author":56,"headline":13,"publisher":58,"fileFormat":61,"inLanguage":23,"description":14,"dateModified":62,"datePublished":62,"encodingFormat":61,"isAccessibleForFree":63,"interactionStatistic":64},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":57},"Person",{"url":41,"name":59,"@type":60},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-08-27",true,{"@type":65,"interactionType":66,"userInteractionCount":4},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":67},"ViewAction",{"@type":69,"mainEntity":70},"FAQPage",[71,77,81,85],{"name":72,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":74},"What does the article mean by “lifting the blindfold” for judges?","Question",{"text":75,"@type":76},"It refers to removing the legislative rule that forbids judges from using the code’s visible structure when interpreting statutes, so judges can consider how provisions are organized and labeled.","Answer",{"name":78,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":79},"How does the 1948 revision of Title 28 relate to the article’s argument?",{"text":80,"@type":76},"The article explains that the 1948 enactment structured statutory sections into chapters with identifying headings, and Congress later instructed judges not to draw inferences from that location or the “catchlines”.",{"name":82,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":83},"What problems does the article identify when courts ignore statutory structure?",{"text":84,"@type":76},"It argues this produces unjust and inconsistent results by preventing courts from relying on the statutory framework, illustrated through two case examples under the statute of limitations and the Federal Tort Claims Act.",{"name":86,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":87},"What solution does the article propose?",{"text":88,"@type":76},"It calls for repealing the legislation that blinds courts to structural reality and promotes structural context as an effective tool for interpreting the Judicial Code.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":52,"og:type":91,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":59,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":93,"canonical":52},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":24},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":96},[97,101,105,109,114,119,124,127,132,135,139],{"id":20,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":47,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":53,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":120,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":122,"slug":123},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":11,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":12,"show_sort_weight":125,"slug":126},30,"research-report",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":130,"slug":131},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":130,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":133,"show_sort_weight":130,"slug":134},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":136,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":137,"show_sort_weight":136,"slug":138},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":140,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":141,"show_sort_weight":110,"slug":142},19,"General","general"]