Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England

Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawAbortionRemediesParental notificationabortionparental notificationhealth exceptionmedical emergency

Facts

New Hampshire enacted a parental notification law requiring a physician to wait 48 hours after written notice to a parent or guardian before performing an abortion on a pregnant minor, subject to criminal and civil penalties for violations. The Act allowed abortion without notice if the physician certified it was necessary to prevent the minor's death and there was insufficient time to provide notice, if the notified person certified prior notice, or if a judge authorized the abortion through a confidential bypass procedure. The Act did not expressly allow a physician to perform an abortion without parental notification in a medical emergency threatening the minor's health. The respondents, who provide abortions for minors and anticipated emergency cases, challenged the Act on that basis.

Issue

When a parental notification statute regulating abortion may be unconstitutional as applied in medical emergencies because it lacks protection for a minor's health, must a court invalidate the statute entirely? Or may a court instead grant narrower declaratory or injunctive relief directed only at the unconstitutional applications, if that remedy is consistent with legislative intent?

Rule

When confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, courts should try to limit the remedy to the problem. The normal rule is partial rather than facial invalidation: courts should, where possible, enjoin only unconstitutional applications or sever problematic portions while leaving the remainder in force, so long as the remedy does not require rewriting state law and is faithful to legislative intent.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon enacts a statute requiring 24 hours' notice to a parent before a physician may perform a procedure on a minor, with criminal penalties for violations. A federal court finds that in a very small number of emergency cases, delaying the procedure would create serious health risks, but the statute is valid in the mine-run of cases.

What is the best remedial approach under the governing doctrine?

Explanation. The Court's remedial rule is that courts should try to limit the solution to the problem. The normal course is partial rather than facial invalidation, such as enjoining only unconstitutional applications, so long as the court does not rewrite state law and the narrower remedy is faithful to legislative intent. Wholesale invalidation is not automatically required merely because some emergency applications are unconstitutional.