Opinion ID: 467556
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is Sec. 1401(a)(3)(A) Severable From MPPAA?

Text: 83 The Supreme Court has set forth the following test of severability: 84 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. 85 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108-09, 96 S.Ct. 612, 677, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976), quoting Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, 286 U.S. 210, 234, 52 S.Ct 559, 564, 76 L.Ed. 1062 (1932). Under this standard, the presumption is in favor of severability. Regan, 104 S.Ct. at 3269. There is no question that MPPAA would remain fully operative as a coherent statutory scheme if the trustees' determination of withdrawal liability were not presumed correct in arbitration. 21 The remaining question, then, is whether Congress would have passed MPPAA without the presumption in favor of the trustees' determination. For several reasons, we believe it would have. 86 First, MPPAA amended ERISA, which contains a severability clause, Section 1139 stipulates that if any provision of ERISA is deemed unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act is to remain intact. Section 1139 was not repealed or amended by MPPAA. Thus, it was clearly Congress' intent that provisions of the complicated scheme were to be severable. 22 MPPAA contains many provisions that serve Congress' aim of discouraging plan withdrawals and ensuring plan solvency, e.g., repeal of the 30% maximum liability, and provisions for mandatory withdrawal liability. The legislative history offers no suggestion, and we have no reason to believe, that Congress would not have passed MPPAA simply because it could not insulate the trustees' initial determination of liability from de novo review. 87 Accordingly, we find Sec. 1401(a)(3)(A) to be severable from the rest of the statutory scheme. 88