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).
Really old saying: “If they say jump in a fire would you?”
Whilst im disappointed in a few of them I don’t care. A ban is still wrong and that law is dangerous on the books