Criminal Defense Lawyers

New Jersey Section 2C:41-6.2 – Severability

New Jersey Section 2C:41-6.2 – Severability

New Jersey Statute 2C:41-6.2 deals with the severability of the state’s racketeering laws. Severability refers to whether a statute can stand on its own if one part of it is found to be unconstitutional or invalid. Basically, severability allows the valid parts of a law to remain in effect even if certain provisions are struck down.

Background on New Jersey’s Racketeering Laws

New Jersey has laws prohibiting racketeering activity, which are contained in Chapter 41 of Title 2C of the state’s criminal code. Racketeering involves committing criminal acts as part of an ongoing criminal organization or enterprise. The state’s racketeering laws target crimes like extortion, money laundering, trafficking, and fraud when done in furtherance of an organized criminal conspiracy.

New Jersey’s racketeering laws allow for prosecuting the leaders of organized crime who order others to commit crimes on their behalf. The laws impose strict penalties for racketeering convictions, including long prison terms and forfeiture of assets obtained through criminal activity.

Purpose and Effects of Severability

The purpose of severability clauses like 2C:41-6.2 is to preserve as much of a statute as possible if certain parts are invalidated. Severability allows the overall legislative intent to remain even if narrow provisions are struck down.

For New Jersey’s racketeering laws, severability means that if one offense or penalty provision were found unconstitutional, the rest of the statutory scheme would remain intact. The invalid part could be severed, allowing prosecutors to continue enforcing the valid portions against organized crime enterprises.

Severability promotes judicial restraint by avoiding overbroad rulings. Instead of striking down an entire statute, courts can target only the specific parts that are flawed. Severability clauses like 2C:41-6.2 make it clear that the legislature intended for valid provisions to be severed from any invalid applications.

Severability Presumptions in New Jersey

Even without an express severability provision like 2C:41-6.2, New Jersey courts generally presume that statutes are severable. The state constitution directs courts to uphold legislative intent to the fullest extent possible when part of a law is invalid.

Absent a severability clause, New Jersey courts determine whether the remaining statute can function independently and whether the legislature would have enacted the valid parts alone. If so, the invalid portions are severed to preserve the overall legislative purpose.

By including an express severability provision in the racketeering laws, the legislature made its intent for severability abundantly clear. Section 2C:41-6.2 creates an almost irrefutable presumption that the valid parts of the racketeering provisions should remain if any narrow parts are struck down.

Severability Analysis by New Jersey Courts

When analyzing severability, New Jersey courts consider whether:

• The remaining statute is capable of functioning independently
• The legislature intended for the valid parts to stand alone
• The overall legislative purpose is still accomplished without the invalid sections

If the answer to these questions is yes, then the courts will sever the flawed provisions and preserve the rest of the statute.

For example, in State v. Muhammad, the New Jersey Supreme Court struck down part of a criminal statute but upheld the valid portions under severability analysis. The Court severed the flawed part because the overall legislative intent could still be fulfilled.

Based on past rulings, New Jersey courts would almost certainly uphold Section 2C:41-6.2 and preserve as much of the racketeering laws as possible if part was found invalid. The severability provision makes the legislature’s intent for severance clear.

Severability in Federal Racketeering Laws

At the federal level, racketeering is prohibited under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Like New Jersey’s statute, the federal RICO law contains a severability provision stating that any invalid sections should be severed from the rest of the Act.

Federal courts have relied on RICO’s severability clause to preserve valid applications of the law when certain provisions were ruled unconstitutional. For example, in United States v. Pryba, a federal court struck down RICO’s application to obscenity crimes but upheld the rest of the statute under severability analysis.

Severability Allows Valid Racketeering Enforcement

By including Section 2C:41-6.2, the New Jersey legislature intended for prosecutors to continue enforcing valid racketeering laws even if certain provisions are invalidated. Severability allows the core purpose of combatting organized crime to remain even if peripheral parts of the statute are flawed.

In the future, if a court rules that one type of racketeering offense or penalty is unconstitutional, the severability provision would likely allow the rest of New Jersey’s racketeering laws to stay on the books. Prosecutors could continue charging other racketeering crimes that do not have constitutional issues.

Overall, Section 2C:41-6.2 promotes judicial restraint and ensures organized crime can still be prosecuted under valid racketeering provisions even if narrow parts are struck down. Severability clauses preserve legislative intent and allow statutes to properly function even when certain applications are deemed unlawful.