In 2010, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, legislation designed to comprehensively reform the U.S. health care system. Soon after the law’s passage, several lawsuits challenged the constitutionality of the individual mandate, a key provision requiring nearly every American to carry a minimum level of health insurance or face a penalty. Courts have split on whether the individual mandate is outside the scope of Congress’s constitutional authority, and those that have struck down the provision have had to address what fate should befall the remainder of the law.

Severability doctrine is the exclusive mechanism for the courts to deal with questions of partial unconstitutionality in statutes. As of this writing, three courts have addressed the mandate’s severability. All have come to divergent conclusions on if, and how much of, the law can be allowed to stand if the mandate is excised.

This Comment analyzes the split of authority regarding the severability of the individual mandate. It asserts that the approach taken by the Eleventh Circuit—striking the mandate while leaving the remainder of the law intact—is the appropriate course of action for the Supreme Court if it finds that the mandate is unconstitutional. This Comment concludes that the judiciary would overstep its constitutional boundaries if it were to strike additional provisions of PPACA, and that any subsequent re-working of the Act is a task reserved for the legislature.