Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood
546 U.S. 320, 74 U.S.L.W. 4091, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 67 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a statute regulating abortion is unconstitutional in only a narrow set of circumstances, such as medical emergencies, the appropriate judicial remedy is not to invalidate the entire statute facially, but rather to issue a narrower injunction prohibiting only the unconstitutional applications of the law.
Facts:
- In 2003, New Hampshire enacted the Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act.
- The Act required physicians to give 48 hours' written notice to a parent or guardian before performing an abortion on a minor.
- The Act contained an exception if the abortion was necessary to prevent the minor's death, and also provided for a judicial bypass procedure.
- The Act did not contain an explicit exception for medical emergencies where an immediate abortion was necessary to protect the minor's health, but not necessarily to save her life.
- Dr. Wayne Goldner and several clinics that provide abortions for minors anticipated having to provide emergency abortions where compliance with the Act would endanger a minor's health.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Wayne Goldner and three clinics sued the New Hampshire Attorney General in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Parental Notification Act.
- The District Court declared the Act unconstitutional for failing to provide a health exception and permanently enjoined its enforcement.
- The State of New Hampshire appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that the lack of a health exception rendered the entire statute unconstitutional.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When a state's parental notification law for minor abortions is unconstitutional for lacking an explicit exception for a minor's health in medical emergencies, is facially invalidating the entire statute the appropriate judicial remedy?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
No. When a statute is unconstitutional in only a limited number of applications, courts should not invalidate the entire law but should instead craft a narrower remedy. The Court's preference is to enjoin only the unconstitutional applications of a statute while leaving the remainder intact. This approach respects the legislature's intent, avoids judicial overreach, and limits the solution to the specific constitutional problem. While past precedents like Stenberg struck down an entire abortion law for lacking a health exception, the parties in that case did not request a narrower remedy. Here, the constitutional problem only arises in the small number of cases involving medical emergencies. Therefore, the lower courts should have considered issuing a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting the statute's application in those specific circumstances, rather than striking it down wholesale. The case is remanded for the lower courts to determine if this narrower remedy is consistent with the New Hampshire legislature's intent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly shifted the legal landscape regarding remedies for unconstitutional abortion regulations. It established a strong presumption against facial invalidation, favoring narrower, as-applied remedies instead. This makes it more difficult for challengers to strike down an entire statute based on a flaw that affects only a small subset of cases. Future litigation in this area must now focus not only on proving a constitutional violation but also on arguing why a limited injunction is an insufficient remedy and that facial invalidation is consistent with legislative intent.
