The mandate and related insurance regulations are the heart of a sprawling and complex legislative compromise, and there is no chance the Act—in anything resembling its current form—would have been enacted in their absence. The standard for non-severability is well established. After a court strikes a statute's unconstitutional provisions, the 'remaining provisions' must be invalidated where 'it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions ... independently of that which is invalid'.

In April, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filed a brief [text, PDF] with the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the PPACA is constitutional. The DOJ argued [JURIST report] that the interstate health market can be regulated by Congress because it is fundamentally different from other markets due to the pervasive government involvement in health care spending. It also argued that the minimum coverage provision, which is the focus of the litigation, is constitutional because it regulates only economic activity, disputing the lower court's finding that failure to purchase health insurance could not be regulated as interstate commerce. In January, Judge Roger Vinson for the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida [official website] struck down [JURIST report] the mandate as unconstitutional.