---
title: "Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England"
description: "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."
type: "case"
court: "U.S. Supreme Court"
decided: "2006-01-18"
citation: "546 U.S. 320 (2006)"
docket: "04-1144"
status: "Good law on remedial question"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-2006.html"
---

# Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England

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

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

**Status:** Good law on remedial question

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Argued | November 30, 2005 |
| Decided | January 18, 2006 |
| Vote | 9-0 |
| Majority author | O'Connor, J. |
| Joined by | Roberts, C.J.; Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ. |

## 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.

## 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.

## Opinions

### Majority — O'Connor, J.

_Joined by 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.

## Key quotes

> "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

> "States have the right to require parental involvement when a minor considers terminating her pregnancy."
> — O'Connor, J. · slip op.

## 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.

## 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.

## Significance

A remedial decision with limited doctrinal impact on abortion itself.

| Measure | Score |
| --- | --- |
| Overall significance | 3 / 10 |
| Legal precedential weight | 3 |
| Practical impact on access | 3 |
| Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 2 |
| Enduring relevance, 2026 | 2 |

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/320](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/320/)

### Secondary sources

- [aclu.org/press-releases/supr…](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-ruling-ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-recognizes-protections-womens-health)

## Related cases

**Cites earlier cases:**

- [Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)](planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992.md)

## Notes

Justice O'Connor's final opinion before retirement.