Court Opinion

ID: 9429749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:27:47.40038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:21.302833
License: Public Domain

Justice Powell,
with whom Justice Blackmun joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the reasoning and the holding of the Court that the “purposes” requirement contained in § 504 is unconstitutional. I do not agree with the Court’s conclusion that “the policies Congress sought to advance by enacting § 504 can be effectuated even though the purpose requirement is unenforceable.” Ante, at 653. As Part II-B(l) of Justice Brennan’s opinion explains, the plain language and legisla*692tive history of § 504 confirm that Congress enacted that provision for the sole purpose of exempting, from the otherwise comprehensive ban on likenesses of the currency, illustrations that serve specifically identified purposes. The “purposes” clause, therefore, is essential to the statutory plan. If that clause is unconstitutional, as the Court, in my view, properly holds, the entire statute is invalid. I agree with Justice Brennan that Justice White “errs in simply deleting the crucial statutory language and using the words that remain as the raw materials for a new statute of his own making.” Ante, at 673.
Justice Stevens, in his opinion concurring in the judgment in part, advances strong policy arguments in favor of upholding the color and size restrictions. See post, at 701-703, and n. 6. Under my view of the case, I do not reach this issue. I note further that one may assume that Congress — if necessary — would move promptly to enact a more carefully drawn statute.
In sum, I believe that the “purposes” clause of § 504(1) is unconstitutional, and that Congress would not have enacted the remaining provisions of §504 without that clause. I, therefore, simply would invalidate § 504 and affirm the judgment of the District Court without reaching the constitutionality of either the “publication” requirement or the color and size restrictions.