“And FR does not have 1 million active users per month:
“(ii) has more than 1,000,000 monthly active users with respect to at least 2 of the 3 months preceding the date on which a relevant determination of the President is made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B);”
They are not bound by that qualification. They left a loophole where they can still use the law WITHOUT that qualification and clause. In fact they can legally apply the law without the “foriegn” qualification with the same loophole the stuck in there...
“(1) IN GENERAL.—If any provision of this section or the application of this section to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.”
Meaning none of the requirements are bound, and none of the exclusions are bound. They can twist it anyway they like selectively. I have been warning about this language since the very beginning.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text
Held invalid, meaning Constitutionally impermissible.
Constitutional impermissibility in part of a statute has traditionally placed the entirety of the statute in justifiable danger of being struck down by SCOTUS.
Because this is now black letter Constitutional Law, the statutory language you are referencing is now commonly included by Congress in laws that they pass. As in, boilerplate language.
It is a signal to SCOTUS: Please do not strike this entire law down on Constitutional grounds if it is possible to preserve one or more parts of it that logically can function as intended without the struck-down part.
SCOTUS has traditionally taken such language into account when evaluating whether and when an entire statute should be struck down as unconstitutional. But it has not ceded its independent judgment and will strike the entire statute down if it sees the invalid portion as being “to the heart” of what the statute was intended to do, or how it was intended to function.
At this point it should be said, though, that SCOTUS can seem at times to lean towards being too deferential at times, vis. Justice Roberts preserving Obamacare (Tax vs. Penalty distinction in the case of an individual having failed to purchase the type or level of health care insurance required by that law).