New Jersey Section 2C:7-17 – Severability.
Contents
New Jersey’s Severability Clause for Megan’s Law
New Jersey’s Megan’s Law, which requires sex offenders to register with local law enforcement, includes a severability clause in Section 2C:7-17. This clause states that if any part of the law is found to be invalid by a court, the rest of the law will remain in effect. Let’s take a closer look at severability clauses and why they’re important for controversial laws like Megan’s Law.
What is a Severability Clause?
A severability clause, also called a salvator clause, is a provision included in legislation that sets out what should happen if part of the law is found unconstitutional or invalid. It allows the rest of the law to remain in place if just one part is struck down.
Severability clauses are common in big, complex laws – like Megan’s Law – where there’s a greater chance that a court may find an issue with a certain section. The clause acts as a type of insurance for the legislation.
For example, Section 2C:7-17 states:
“If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.
“This makes it clear that Megan’s Law should remain standing even if a certain requirement is found unconstitutional. The rest of the law’s provisions would stay in effect.
Why Megan’s Law Has a Severability Clause
Megan’s Law has faced numerous legal challenges since it was enacted in 1994. Opponents have argued that its registration requirements violate offenders’ constitutional rights. There have been disputes over its notification rules, registration timelines, and more.
Over the years, courts have struck down parts of the law while leaving other sections intact. The severability clause has allowed the bulk of Megan’s Law to survive despite successful appeals on certain issues.
The New Jersey Legislature knew Megan’s Law would be controversial and likely challenged in court. That’s why they included Section 2C:7-17 – to make sure the entire law wouldn’t be scrapped if one aspect was found problematic.
Severability Clause in Action
There are a few examples where the severability clause has protected most of Megan’s Law from being overturned:
- Doe v. Poritz (1995) – The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the law’s constitutionality but struck down the notification provisions as overly broad. The rest of Megan’s Law remained valid due to the severability clause.
- A.A. v. New Jersey (2007) – An appeals court ruled that certain restrictions on offenders’ internet use violated the First Amendment. This part was struck down, but the severability clause allowed the rest of Megan’s Law to stay in effect.
- Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Board (2011) – Here the state Supreme Court found that mandatory lifetime supervision for some offenders went too far. This portion was invalidated, but severability meant only that provision was eliminated.
So while opponents have succeeded in modifying certain aspects, the severability clause has prevented Megan’s Law as a whole from being dismantled.
Severability Clause Limitations
It’s important to understand that severability clauses aren’t absolute. They can only go so far in saving a law if large sections are overturned.
For example, if a court found the entire registration system unconstitutional, severability wouldn’t save Megan’s Law. You can’t sever something so core and expect the rest to function properly.
Additionally, severability clauses are up to interpretation. Sometimes judges rule that too much of a law is flawed for the remainder to stand, regardless of what a severability provision states.
So while Section 2C:7-17 offers useful protection, it doesn’t give ironclad assurance that Megan’s Law will withstand all legal tests. The more central the challenged provision, the less likely severability can preserve the legislation.
Arguments For and Against Severability
There are good-faith arguments on both sides of severability clauses:
Supporting Severability
- Allows valid, constitutional parts of a law to remain in effect
- Prevents throwing out good policies along with bad
- Upholds legislative intent as much as possible
- Promotes judicial restraint by limiting overturned sections
Opposing Severability
- Judges may uphold questionable laws by only excising small parts
- Could allow an altered law the legislature never intended
- Citizens must comply with remaining parts not clearly valid
- Forces legislature to revisit issues thought resolved
Reasonable minds can disagree on the merits of severability. But for controversial laws like Megan’s Law, severability clauses offer a compromise for keeping as much intact as possible.
The Future of Megan’s Law
It’s likely we haven’t seen the last court challenge to New Jersey’s Megan’s Law. As long as it’s on the books, there will be those advocating for change or even complete repeal.
But so far the severability clause has protected the core registration and notification rules. These key provisions remain enforceable and applicable to sex offenders living in the state today.
Going forward, Section 2C:7-17 will allow incremental tweaks to Megan’s Law without dismantling the entire system. It enables revision without starting over from scratch each time.
For now, severability keeps this complex and controversial legislation largely in force. Megan’s Law as originally passed is fundamentally intact thanks to its severability clause.