Opinion ID: 627152
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Subsections are Severable

Text: We must decide at what level of generality to undertake the analysis. That is: do all provisions of § 399b stand or fall together, or should we analyze separately subsections 399b(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3)? We conclude that it is appropriate to sever the provisions and analyze them separately. Although neither § 399b nor the Public Broadcasting Amendments Act of 1981 contains an explicit severability clause, we are confident that we nevertheless may hold one section constitutional without so holding as to the others. Statutes are presumptively severable and a court should refrain from invalidating more of the statute than is necessary. Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 684, 107 S.Ct. 1476, 94 L.Ed.2d 661 (1987). We may sever the statute [u]nless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not. Id. Here, we see no reason to think that Congress would not have enacted the ban on promotional advertising by for-profit entities if it could not also have enacted the bans on political or public issue advertising. Moreover, neither party contends the statute is not severable, and the district court analyzed the provisions separately. There is thus no warrant for departing from the general presumption of severability in this case. Our conclusion is further supported by Congress's decision to ban advertising selectively. Since Congress determined that these three classes of advertising should be banned, then Congress must demonstrate that the recited harms to the substantial governmental interest of each class of advertising are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate those harms in a direct and material way. Turner I, 512 U.S. at 664-65, 114 S.Ct. 2445. It is that inquiry to which we now turn.