Severability doctrine consists of courts invalidating a provision in a statute while saving and upholding the remainder of it. Under this doctrine, courts:

“

treat the severability doctrine as a “remedy” for constitutional violations and ask which provisions of the statute must be “excised.”

”

Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1486 (2018) (Thomas, J., concurring).

Justice Clarence Thomas has been very critical of severability doctrine, preferring instead that judges limit themselves to issuing judgments.

Severability doctrine is central to the legal challenges to the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

It is also common in laws passed, that the law contain a "severability clause" allowing the remainder of the law to be valid if a portion is later found to be invalid.