47 U.S.C. § 608
Separability
If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1937–2021 · leading case: Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). “X At oral argument, the Government relied heavily on its ultimate fall-back position: If this Court should conclude that the CDA is insufficiently tailored, it urged, we should save the statute's constitutionality by honoring the severability clause, see 47 U. S. C. § 608 , and…”
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726 (1978). “1105 , 47 U. S. C. § 608 . Although the 1948 codification of the criminal laws and the addition of new civil penalties changes the statutory structure, no substantive change was apparently intended.”
Noah Duguid v. Facebook, Inc., 926 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019). “” 47 U.S.C. § 608 . While not dispositive, this unambiguous language endorsing severability relieves us of a counterfactual inquiry as to congressional intent and creates a presumption of severability absent “strong evidence that Congress intended otherwise.”
Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 923 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2019). “" See 47 U.S.C. § 608 . That severability provision eases our inquiry on the severance issue and creates "a presumption that Congress did not intend the validity of the statute in question to depend on the validity of the constitutionally offensive provision.”
CBS Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 663 F.3d 122 (3rd Cir. 2008). “The 1927 and 1934 Acts indicated in the strongest possible language that any invalid provision was separable from the rest of the Act.”
ApolloMedia Corp. v. Reno, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. 1998). “[2] 47 U.S.C. § 608 reads: "If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.”
S. Broad. Corp. v. Carlson, 175 So. 587 (La. 1937). “1105 , 47 U.S.C.A. § 608 ; section 4 (f) of the act, as amended by Act of January 22.”
Katz v. Liberty Power Corp., LLC (D. Mass. 2019). “at 16–17 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 608 )]. The fact that the provision speaks directly to severability “creates a presumption of severability absent ‘strong evidence that Congress intended otherwise.”
Beach Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 965 F.2d 1103 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “The severability provision at 47 U.S.C. § 608 (1988), which governs the Cable Act, authorizes this narrowly focussed remedy: “If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter and the…”
Perrong v. Liberty Power Corp, L.L.C. (D. Del. 2019). “” 47 U.S.C. § 608 . Accordingly, there is a presumption that severance is consistent with Congressional intent.”
Aapc, Inc. v. Fcc (4th Cir. 2019). “” See 47 U.S.C. § 608 . That severability provision eases our inquiry on the severance issue and creates “a presumption that Congress did not intend the validity of the statute in question to depend on the validity of the constitutionally offensive provision.”
Hoffman v. Jelly Belly Candy Co., Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2020). “3d 17 at 1156–57; see also 47 U.S.C. § 608 . And now the Supreme Court 18 has been asked to resolve the legal issue of whether severing is 19 the proper remedy.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.