The New General Common Law of Severability
Marquette University Law School
October 6, 2011
Texas Law Review, Vol. 91, 2013
Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 11-22
The doctrine of 'severability' permits a court to excise the unconstitutional portion of a partially unconstitutional statute in order to preserve the operation of any uncontested or valid remainder. Severability figures centrally in a broad array of constitutional litigation, including the litigation over the 'individual mandate' provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Nevertheless, the doctrine remains underexplored. In particular, no commentator has thoroughly examined choice-of-law rules pertaining to its application. This Article aims to fill that void. The Article contends that in recent decisions the Supreme Court has quietly established the severability of state statutes in federal court to be a matter of general federal common law, and that this doctrine is not only inconsistent with dozens of cases decided since Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, but also displaces a large body of diverse state law without constitutional authorization or a supporting federal interest. The new doctrine thus challenges standard accounts of the limits of federal common law and calls into question the contemporary vitality of Erie’s principle of judicial federalism. The Article closes by proposing an alternative that would harmonize the precedent, help to revitalize Erie, and honor the bounds of Article III judicial power.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 58
Keywords: severability, choice-of-law, judicial power, Erie, AyotteAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: October 8, 2011 ; Last revised: February 24, 2013
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.437 seconds