Skip Repeated Content

BCLP Associate Brian Underwood co-authored an article in the 69th volume of the   Drake Law Review  with Slade Mendenhall, attorney at the Georgia General Solicitor’s Office. The two discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s attempts to clarify its severability jurisprudence in two specific cases: Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants. The article highlights the idea that the opinions of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh sent inconsistent signals on the role of legislature intent in severability decisions. The article also explains how the competing theory of Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch is somewhat clearer but lacks the historical support that its advocates claim. “In short, the core question of severability is whether a single unconstitutional provision of a statute contaminates the whole statute or whether it may separately be deemed unconstitutional while leaving the remainder of the statute intact,” the article states. The Drake Law Review is a publication of the Drake University Law School.

Related Practices

This document provides a general summary and is for information/educational purposes only. It is not intended to be comprehensive, nor does it constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should always be sought before taking or refraining from taking any action.