‘The presumption is always in favor of severability’
SUPREME COURT NOMINEE Judge Amy Coney Barrett didn’t commit to vote any certain way in the contentious California v. Texas challenge to the Affordable Care Act. But during confirmation hearings last week, she offered some insight on how she thinks about the ACA and legal doctrines that will be important in the case. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on her nomination this week.
On the Affordable Care Act:
“I am not here on a mission here to destroy the Affordable Care Act, I’m just here to apply the law.”
“I have said repeatedly under oath that I had no conversations with anyone in the White House about that case, and to the extent that there is a suggestion that I have an agenda that I want to strike down people’s protection for preexisting conditions, that’s just not true.” “I think any issue that would arise under the
Affordable Care Act or any other statute should be determined by the law, by the text of the statute, by looking at precedent the same way that it would for anyone. If there were policy differences, or policy consequences, those are for this body.”
On severability, which may be a key issue in California v. Texas:
“I think the doctrine of severability serves a valuable function of trying not to undo your work when you wouldn’t want a court to undo your work.”
“Severability strives to look at a statute as a whole
and say, would Congress have considered this provision so vital that in the Jenga game, that pulling it out, Congress wouldn’t want the statute anymore?”
“The presumption is always in favor of severability.”