Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

3 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

cases.  See  id.,  at  755;  Baude,  The  Judgment  Power,  96 
Geo.  L. J.  1807,  1815  (2008).    Judicial  review  was  a  by-
product of that process.  See generally P. Hamburger, Law 
and  Judicial  Duty  (2008);  Prakash  &  Yoo,  The  Origins  of
Judicial  Review,  70  U.  Chi.  L. Rev.  887  (2003).    As  Chief 
Justice Marshall famously explained, “[i]t is emphatically 
the  province  and  duty  of  the  judicial  department  to  say 
what  the  law  is”  because  “[t]hose  who  apply  the  rule  to
particular  cases,  must of  necessity  expound  and  interpret
that rule.”  Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). 
If  a  plaintiff  relies  on  a  statute  but  a  defendant  argues 
that  the  statute  conflicts  with  the  Constitution,  then 
courts  must  resolve  that  dispute  and,  if  they  agree  with 
the  defendant,  follow  the  higher  law  of  the  Constitution. 
See  id.,  at  177–178;  The  Federalist  No.  78,  p. 467 
(C. Rossiter  ed.  1961)  (A.  Hamilton).    Thus,  when  early 
American  courts  determined  that  a  statute  was  unconsti-
tutional, they would simply decline to enforce it in the case
before  them.  See  Walsh  755–766.    “[T]here  was  no  ‘next
step’ in which courts inquired into whether the legislature
would  have  preferred  no  law  at  all  to  the  constitutional 
remainder.”  Id., at 777. 

Despite  this  historical  practice,  the  Court’s  modern 
cases  treat  the  severability  doctrine  as  a  “remedy”  for 
constitutional  violations  and  ask  which  provisions  of  the 
statute  must  be  “excised.”  See,  e.g.,  Ayotte  v.  Planned 
Parenthood  of  Northern  New  Eng.,  546  U. S.  320,  329 
(2006);  Booker,  supra,  at  245;  Alaska  Airlines,  Inc.  v. 
Brock, 480 U. S. 678, 686 (1987).  This language cannot be
taken  literally.  Invalidating  a  statute  is  not  a  “remedy,” 
like  an  injunction,  a  declaration,  or  damages.    See  Harri-
son,  Severability,  Remedies,  and Constitutional  Adjudica-
tion,  83  Geo.  Wash.  L. Rev.  56,  82–88  (2014)  (Harrison).
Remedies “operate with respect to specific parties,” not “on 
legal rules in the abstract.”  Id., at 85; see also Massachu-
setts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923) (explaining that