the chief head on when discussing the linchpin of the case given that it's the main point of contention between him and them. And something else is strange too: The conservative opinion goes on to argue in methodical detail why the rest of the law shouldn't be severable from the mandate. Quote: The opinion now explains in Part V -- C -- 1, infra, why the Act's major provisions are not severable from the Mandate and Medicaid Expansion. It proceeds from the insurance regulations and taxes (C -- 1 -- a), to the reductions in reimbursements to hospitals and other Medicare reductions(C -- 1 -- b), the exchanges and their federal subsidies (C -- 1 -- c),and the employer responsibility assessment (C -- 1 -- d). Part V -- C -- 2, infra, explains why the Act's minor provisions also are not severable. Major provisions of the Affordable Care Act -- i.e., the insurance regulations and taxes, the reductions in federal reimbursements to hospitals and other Medicare spending reductions, the exchanges and their federal subsidies, and the employer responsibility assessment -- cannot remain once the Individual Mandate and Medicaid Expansion are invalid. Why would they bother with an intricate analysis of which provisions were severable from the mandate if this opinion was written in the knowledge that the mandate was ultimately being upheld? You only need step-by-step instructions on severability if you're in the majority and obliged to provide lower courts with guidance on which parts of the statute are