Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf
Page Number: 15

12 

BARR v. AMERICAN ASSN. OF POLITICAL  
CONSULTANTS, INC. 
Opinion of KAVANAUGH, J. 

We agree with the Government that we must invalidate
the 2015 government-debt exception and sever that excep-
tion from the remainder of the statute.  To explain why, we
begin  with  general  severability  principles  and  then  apply 
those principles to this case. 

1 
When enacting a law, Congress sometimes expressly ad-
dresses severability.  For example, Congress may include a 
severability clause in the law, making clear that the uncon-
stitutionality of one provision does not affect the rest of the 
law.  See,  e.g.,  12  U. S. C.  §5302;  15  U. S. C.  §78gg;  47 
U. S. C. §608.  Alternatively, Congress may include a non-
severability clause, making clear that the unconstitutional-
ity of one provision means the invalidity of some or all of
the remainder of the law, to the extent specified in the text 
of the nonseverability clause.  See, e.g., 4 U. S. C. §125; note 
following 42 U. S. C. §300aa–1; 94 Stat. 1797.

When Congress includes an express severability or non-
severability clause in the relevant statute, the judicial in-
quiry is straightforward.  At least absent extraordinary cir-
cumstances,  the  Court  should  adhere  to  the  text  of  the 
severability  or  nonseverability  clause.  That  is  because  a 
severability or nonseverability clause leaves no doubt about
what the enacting Congress wanted if one provision of the 
law  were  later  declared  unconstitutional.    A  severability
clause indicates “that Congress did not intend the validity
of the statute in question to depend on the validity of the
constitutionally offensive provision.”  Alaska Airlines, Inc. 
v. Brock, 480 U. S. 678, 686 (1987).  And a nonseverability
clause does the opposite. 

On  occasion,  a  party  will  nonetheless  ask  the  Court  to
override the text of a severability or nonseverability clause 
on the ground that the text does not reflect Congress’s “ac-
tual intent” as to severability.  That kind of argument may