Opinion ID: 1710025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: severability principles

Text: [4] ¶ 36. Statutes that are challenged as overbroad may be preserved if a limiting and validating construction of the statute's language is readily available. Courts may also sever the unconstitutional provisions of the statute, leaving the remainder of the legislation intact and in full effect. See Thiel, 183 Wis. 2d at 521, 522 (citing Fallon, 100 Yale L. Rev. at 886); see also Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613 ([A]ny enforcement of a statute thus placed at issue is totally forbidden until and unless a limiting construction or partial invalidation so narrows it as to remove the seeming threat or deterrence to constitutionally protected expression.). ¶ 37. Whether an unconstitutional provision is severable from the remainder of the statute in which it appears is largely a question of legislative intent, but the presumption is in favor of severability. Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 653 (1984). Unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law. Id. (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108 (1976)). ¶ 38. These general rules of construction have been codified in Wisconsin by Wis. Stat. § 990.001(11), which provides in relevant part: 990.001 Construction of laws; rules for. In construing Wisconsin laws the following rules shall be observed unless construction in accordance with a rule would produce a result inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature: . . . (11) Severability. The provisions of the statutes are severable. . . .If any provision of the statutes or of a session law is invalid, or if the application of either to any person or circumstance is invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. [5] ¶ 39. Therefore, in our attempt to sever or find a limiting construction of Wis. Stat. § 946.05(1), we examine the language of the statute as well as its legislative history to determine whether the legislature intended the statute to be applied in its newly-construed form. See Milwaukee v. Wroten, 160 Wis. 2d 207, 227, 466 N.W.2d 861 (1991).