What distinguishes primary law from secondary authorities in legal research?

• A. Primary law must be followed; secondary authorities are persuasive only
• B. Primary law is always persuasive; secondary are binding
• C. Primary law includes only statutes, not cases
• D. Secondary authorities are binding in higher courts

Answer: (A)

The key idea is the binding force of sources. Primary law consists of the actual rules created by the government or courts—constitutions, statutes, regulations, and binding case law. These are the rules courts must apply or interpret, so they carry mandatory authority. Secondary authorities, like treatises, law reviews, restatements, and encyclopedias, don’t create rules themselves. They explain, analyze, interpret, or summarize the primary sources and are persuasive, not binding. Lawyers and judges use them to understand the law and to locate the relevant primary authorities, but they cannot override or bind unless they restate a controlling primary rule.

So the correct choice captures that primary law must be followed, while secondary authorities are persuasive only. The other statements misstate the nature of primary or secondary sources—for example, primary law is not limited to statutes (cases are primary), and secondary authorities are not binding in higher courts.