Abhortion for the abolition of abortion
The Index Print
Cases/ U.S. Supreme Court/ 2006

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England

546 U.S. 320 (2006) · Docket No. 04-1144

Full caption: Ayotte, Attorney General of New Hampshire v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England et al.

Good law on remedial question

Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Argued
November 30, 2005
Decided
January 18, 2006
Majority author
O'Connor, J.
Joined by
Roberts, C.J.; Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ.
Vote
9-0
Case No. 16 of 28 All cases, indexed

Question presented

If an abortion statute (New Hampshire's Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act) is unconstitutional only in a narrow range of medical emergencies, is the appropriate remedy total invalidation or a narrower injunction?

Holding

Invalidating a statute entirely is not always necessary or justified when only some applications would be unconstitutional. Lower courts may render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief.

Key reasoning

Justice O'Connor's unanimous opinion sought to preserve as much of a state's abortion regulation as possible when only limited applications are unconstitutional. This was O'Connor's last opinion before retirement.

§ 1 Reasoning

Justice O'Connor's unanimous opinion sought to preserve as much of a state's abortion regulation as possible when only limited applications are unconstitutional. This was O'Connor's last opinion before retirement.

§ 2 Opinions

Majority

O'Connor, J.

Roberts, C.J.; Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ.

Invalidating a statute entirely is not always necessary or justified when only some applications would be unconstitutional. Lower courts may render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief.

“We do not revisit our abortion precedents today, but rather address a question of remedy: If enforcing a statute that regulates access to abortion would be unconstitutional in medical emergencies, what is the appropriate judicial response? We hold that invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief.” O'Connor, J. · slip op. at 1

§ 3 Key quotes

“States have the right to require parental involvement when a minor considers terminating her pregnancy.”
O'Connor, J.slip op.

§ 4 Practical effect

State abortion laws lacking health exceptions could be enjoined only as to medical emergencies rather than struck down entirely. Preserved parental notification laws generally.

§ 5 Perspectives

The summaries below are descriptive, not evaluative — an attempt to represent fairly how each camp typically frames this case.

Abolitionist framing

Abolitionists have mixed views: the remedial narrowing prevented complete invalidation of pro-life laws, but the framework preserved a health exception that abolitionists reject.

Mainstream pro-life framing

Mainstream pro-life groups generally supported the narrower remedy as preserving parental involvement laws.

Pro-choice framing

Advocates viewed the ruling as procedural but noted it preserved parental notification requirements.

§ 6 Significance

3/ 10

A remedial decision with limited doctrinal impact on abortion itself.

Legal precedential weight3
Practical impact on access3
Movement relevance (abolitionist)2
Enduring relevance, 20262

§ 7 Sources

Cites earlier cases

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Editorial note Justice O'Connor's final opinion before retirement.