478
Per Curiam
bills in general, and the Hyde Amendment in particular, which in some years are very restrictive and in other years are less so").
The District Court's invalidation of §§ 2 and 3 of the amendment was based on the proposition that these sections "have no function independent of" § 1. 860 F. Supp., at 626. Even assuming that to be true, once § 1 is left with the substantial application that the Supremacy Clause fully allows, §§ 2 and 3 subsist as well.
We therefore reverse the decision of the Eighth Circuit insofar as it affirms the scope of the injunction, and remand for entry of an order enjoining the enforcement of Amendment 68 only to the extent that the amendment imposes obligations inconsistent with federal law.
It is so ordered.
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5Last modified: October 4, 2007