The severability issue may not have been before the court. The court ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional. Unless they were specifically asked to make a determination that the entire bill should be declared void, then they would not have had the jurisdiction to rule that the rest of the bill is void.
The issue was likely limited to whether or not the mandate was constitutional. Unless they were briefed on the effect of the ruling and they were asked to specifically overturn the entire 2200 pages of legislation, then I don't think it would have been proper for this court to void the entire bill.
That will be another lawsuit in another court.
Thank you for the explanation.
I'm assuming it's a slam dunk that the whole bill is voided once a law suit is brought, after a part of the bill has already been ruled unconstitutional.
They were ruling on a lower court ruling that said the whole bill was unconstitutional. By leaving the balance of the law alone they in essence did rule on severability.
Possibly..another thought is that if they tossed the whole law out, because of no severability clause..the administration would ahve asked for an immediate stay...that decision woudl be viewd as political..and the courts liekt o lay low if possible..maybe this is the 11th Circuit’s CoA telling the Supremes to get up off theis asse and take the case NOW