Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 44.0

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

19 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

and  (C)  the  constitutional  provisions  were  arguably  inse-
verable from the unconstitutional provision.

In Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U. S. 678 (1987), a
group of airlines challenged provisions of the Airline Dereg-
ulation Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 1705, that benefited airline em-
ployees.   The  airlines argued  that  (A)  enforcement  of  and 
regulations  under  those  provisions  injured  them;  (B)  the 
Airline Deregulation Act also contained an unlawful legis-
lative  veto;  and  (C)  the  employee-benefit  provisions  were 
“ineffective” because they were inseverable from the legis-
lative veto provision, 480 U. S., at 680.  This Court consid-
ered  and  unanimously  rejected  the  airlines’  argument  on
the merits of the severability question, id., at 687–697, but 
no one questioned the airlines’ standing to seek relief.

The  Court’s  treatment  of  these  arguments  in  the  cases 
just  discussed  is  not  a  modern  innovation.    In  El  Paso  & 
Northeastern R. Co. v. Gutierrez, 215 U. S. 87 (1909), for ex-
ample, a railway company challenged a portion of the Em-
ployers’ Liability Act of 1906, 34 Stat. 232, that preempted
territorial law more favorable to the railway.  The company
argued that (A) a portion of the Act governing U. S. Terri-
tories exposed it to liability in the suit; (B) other portions 
affecting  intrastate  commerce  exceeded  Congress’s  Com-
merce Clause power; and (C) the first portion could not be 
applied  because  it  was  inseverable  from  the  unconstitu-
tional portions.  The Court agreed that the interstate com-
merce aspects of the Act were unlawful, but held that they 
were severable from the territorial provision.  215 U. S., at 
93–98. 

In Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649 (1892),
three  importers  challenged  the  collection  of  tariffs  under
the McKinley Tariff Act.  See Act of Oct. 1, 1890, 26 Stat. 
567.  They argued that (A) several provisions of the Act im-
posed tariffs on goods they imported; (B) §3 of the Act un-
lawfully  delegated  legislative  powers  to  the  President  by 
permitting  him  to  suspend  the  free  importation  of  other