HR-1808 AW ban

[Spats McGee]

They've also built a big severability clause into it:



It might take numerous court battles to overturn it piecemeal, and that costs time and money. They can wear us down through attrition.

You nailed it, Tom. And any smart drafter puts in a severability clause.

 

[44 AMP]

It might take numerous court battles to overturn it piecemeal,

OR the court rules on more than one specific section of the law when it comes before it...

It has not been their habit, of late, but I believe it is still within their authority to do so...

 

[Spats McGee]

OR the court rules on more than one specific section of the law when it comes before it...

It has not been their habit, of late, but I believe it is still within their authority to do so...

It is possible that a court will do that, but as a general rule, courts rule on the question before them but go no broader.

 

[Metal god]

Is that likely why they threw everything in this bill . There are so many individual bans it’s a bit staggering really ?

Also can one plaintiff just sue for every single individual thing in the bill arguing on each part . Then when the district court throws out 90% of the plaintiffs claims for standing or what ever the reasons may be . Would that allow the plaintiffs to bring up everything on appeal ?

 

[Spats McGee]

Is that likely why they threw everything in this bill . There are so many individual bans it’s a bit staggering really ?

Also can one plaintiff just sue for every single individual thing in the bill arguing on each part . Then when the district court throws out 90% of the plaintiffs claims for standing or what ever the reasons may be . Would that allow the plaintiffs to bring up everything on appeal ?

In theory, yes, one plaintiff could sue challenge the entire bill. That plaintiff, however, would have to show that he or she has standing as to each and every aspect of the bill. It's a tough row to hoe.