No, a previous case precedent (Texasgurl vs. Fritz I believe) makes ruling one section of a bill unconstitutional strike down the whole thing. I've also mentioned that it was my initial thought to only strike down unconstutional sections, but in the interest of keeping a stable system(and fair, I suppose, since it would be hypocritical to do it with one bill and not another) I decided not to argue the issue.
Its incredibly bad jurisprudence to think that one part of a Law being unconstitutional causes another part to be automatically unconstitutional. Off hand I can think of no real US case where a separable Law was struck when only half was unconstitutional. If I bothered to check I doubt I could find one. In this case you were lucky since the Act was non-separable because everything was dependent on people qualifying for the program of clause 1/3.
The Court also needs to realise that everything it ever says is mandated to be taken to a logical conclusion. In this case, the equal protection clause argument, as acknowledged, was wrong, and could cause future problems.
