Ask Civics 101: What Are The Differences Between Laws, Regulations, Ordinances, And Statutes?

This week, a listener asks: what are the differences between laws, regulations, ordinances, and statutes?

Do you have a question for Ask Civics 101? Submit it here!

Laws, regulations, ordinances, statutes, acts — it’s hard to keep track of them all. Here’s a quick rundown on each of these.

Law. The law is a rule or a system of rules that regulate conduct and can be enforced by a country, state, and/or municipality. This is the umbrella term, and everything else falls within this category.

Act and Statute. These two mean the same thing: a written law enacted by a legislative body. For example, when a bill passes both houses of Congress, is approved by the President (or Congress overrides his or her veto), and becomes a law, it’s called an act and/or a statute. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Affordable Care Act are both examples of acts/statutes. Federal acts/statutes that are currently being enforced can be found in the United States Code.

Ordinance. An ordinance is a local law or decree adopted by a municipality, or a city/town government. When a piece of legislation is enacted by a municipal authority, it becomes an ordinance. Typically dealing with public safety, health, and general welfare, ordinances often address fire and safety regulations, housing standards, parking regulations, snow removal, littering, public streets and sidewalks, and zoning (land use).

Regulation. Think of a regulation as an official rule with the full weight of law. They’re issued by administrative agencies that have legislative authority over a specific area and can create and enforce rules over that area. For example, the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule is a regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that sets emissions standards for vehicles with model years 2021-2026. All regulations issued by executive departments and agencies of the federal government are published in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations.

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It may be, I am inclined to think, as a matter of procedure and practice, that the subpoena duces tecum was too broad and indefinite. But the action of the court in that regard was, at the utmost, only error, and that error did not affect its jurisdiction to make the order, nor authorize the witness -- whose personal rights, let it be observed, were in nowise involved in the pending inquiry -- to refuse compliance with the subpoena upon the ground that it involved an unreasonable search and seizure of the books, papers, and records of the corporation whose conduct, so far as it related to the Sherman Anti-Trust act, was the subject of the examination. It was not his privilege to stand between the corporation and the government in the investigation before the grand jury. In my opinion, a corporation -- "an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law" -- cannot claim the immunity given by the Fourth Amendment, for it is not a part of the "people," within the meaning of that Amendment. Nor is it embraced by the word "persons" in the Amendment. If a contrary view obtains, the power of the government, by its representatives, to look into the books, records, and papers of a corporation of its own creation to ascertain whether that corporation has obeyed or is defying the law will be greatly curtailed, if not destroyed. If a corporation, when its affairs are under examination by a grand jury