Is that the right statute section? How LegiMatch checks statute citations in a brief

Short answer: checking that "29 U.S.C. § 2612" exists isn't enough - if the sentence is about retaliation, the right section is § 2615. LegiMatch Brief Check reads the sentence each statute is cited for next to the section's heading and text, and flags a clear mismatch with a suggested section. In our blind test it caught 31 of 35 sections changed to another real section and 18 of 19 changed to a section that doesn't exist.

Disclosure: we make LegiMatch.

The mistake most checkers miss

Statute mistakes are usually one digit: § 1983 typed as § 1985, § 2244 as § 2246. When the wrong number is also a real section, a checker that only asks "does this section exist?" says everything is fine. Only reading what the section is cited for reveals the error.

Real examples from court filings

While testing, the check found these in published decisions and Supreme Court briefs - mistakes the courts and lawyers made themselves:

What LegiMatch checks for each statute citation

1. Does the section exist in the code as we hold it? (The full U.S. Code; state codes as available.)
2. Is it repealed or empty? A U.S. Code section the official list still numbers but that has no text gets a caution - fine if you cite the old law on purpose, a likely typo otherwise.
3. Does it fit the sentence? AI compares the brief's words around the citation with the section's heading and opening text, and with the headings of nearby sections. Only a clear mismatch is flagged, as a caution, with a suggested section when a neighbouring section fits.
4. Table of authorities. A section listed in the table whose number never appears in the brief's text gets a caution: the table entry is likely mistyped.

How accurate is it?

From our blind test of 20 October 2026 (100 court decisions and 30 Supreme Court briefs nobody had used before, with statute numbers changed at random):

The four misses had no sentence to judge - a footnote list of numbers, an article title, a table entry whose number also appears in the text - or were plausible even to a lawyer. Full method: our accuracy report.

What it costs

The meaning check runs with every brief check that uses AI and is included with every brief check - brief checks don't use AI credits. The existence, repealed-section and table-of-authorities checks need no AI.

Frequently asked questions

Does it check state statutes?

Existence is checked for every code we hold; the meaning check works for any section we hold with text. We hold the U.S. Code and the official codes of 34 states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The state codes are being loaded this week; the Statutes page shows what's available today. New states are being loaded now; the state list on the Statutes page shows what's available today.

Will it flag a section I cite for the statute as a whole?

No. Definitions, scope and remedies sections cited for the statute generally are treated as fitting; only clear mismatches are flagged.

Can I rely on it instead of reading the statute?

No. It catches likely wrong numbers; confirming the section says what you need is still your job.