Legal Document

546 U.S. 320 (2006) AYOTTE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD NORTHERN ENGLAND ET AL. No. 04-1144. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 30, 2005. Decided January 18, 2006. *321 Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General New Hampshire, petitioner, argued the cause pro se. With her on briefs *322 were Michael Delaney, Deputy General, Daniel J. Mullen, Associate and Laura E. B. Lombardi Anthony I. Blenkinsop, Assistant Attorneys General. Solicitor Clement for States as amicus curiae urging reversal. him brief Keisler, Kannon K. Shanmugam, Marleigh D. Dover. Jennifer Dalven respondents. Steven R. Shapiro, Louise Melling, Talcott Camp, Corinne Schiff, Brigitte Amiri, Diana Kasdan, Lawrence Vogelman, Dara Klassel.[*] *323 JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered opinion Court. We do not revisit our abortion precedents today, but rather address a question remedy: If enforcing statute that regulates access to would be unconstitutional in medical emergencies, what is appropriate judicial response? hold invalidating entirely always necessary or justified, lower courts may able render narrower declaratory injunctive relief. I A In 2003, Hampshire enacted Parental Notification Prior Abortion Act. N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 132:24-132:28 (2005). The Act prohibits physicians from performing an pregnant minor (or woman whom guardian conservator has been appointed) until 48 hours after written notice pending *324 parent guardian. § 132:25(I). Notice personally by certified mail. 132:25(II), (III). Violations are subject criminal civil penalties. 132:27. allows three circumstances which physician perform without notifying minor's parent. First, required if "[t]he attending provider certifies record prevent death there insufficient time provide notice." 132:26(I)(a). Second, person entitled receive certify he she already notified. 132:26(I)(b). Finally, petition judge authorize parental notification. must so finds mature capable giving informed consent, notification best interests. 132:26(II). These bypass proceedings "shall confidential shall given precedence over other matters court reach decision promptly delay," afforded [to the] 24 day, 7 days week." 132:26(II)(b), (c). trial appellate each rule petitions within seven days. Ibid. does explicitly permit emergency B Respondents Dr. Wayne Goldner, obstetrician gynecologist who private practice Manchester, clinics offer reproductive health services. All abortions minors, anticipates having minors future. Before took effect, respondents brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging *325 because it fails "to allow prompt whose endangered" delays inherent App. 10 (Complaint, ¶ 24). also challenged adequacy Act's life exception bypass' confidentiality provision. District declared unconstitutional, see 28 2201(a), permanently enjoined its enforcement. It held, first, was invalid failure "on face [to] comply with constitutional requirement laws restricting woman's exception." Planned Parenthood Northern Eng. Heed, 296 F. Supp. 2d 59, 65 (NH 2003). found operate expeditiously enough emergencies. alternative, held requires impossible precision "necessary" avoid death, protect their good faith judgment. Appeals First Circuit affirmed. Citing decisions Stenberg Carhart, 530 914, 929-930 (2000), Southeastern Pa. Casey, 505 833, 879 (1992) (plurality opinion), Roe Wade, 410 113, 164-165 (1973), observed: "Complementing general undue burden standard [for reviewing regulations], identified specific independent regulation contain preservation health." 390 F.3d 53, 58 (2004). went conclude explicit exception, bypass, along provisions state law, no substitute. further because, view, forces gamble patients' *326 lives prohibiting them they certain imminent, intolerably vague. Because district enforcement basis above infirmities, neither reached respondents' objection granted certiorari, 544 1048 (2005), decide whether below erred entirety lacks minors' health. now vacate remand reconsider choice remedy. II As case comes us, propositionstwo legal one factualare established. unquestionably have right require involvement when considers terminating pregnancy, "strong legitimate interest welfare [their] young citizens, immaturity, inexperience, lack judgment sometimes impair ability exercise rights wisely." Hodgson Minnesota, 497 417, 444-445 (1990) (opinion Stevens, J.).[1] Accordingly, we *327 long upheld statutes like before cast doubt those holdings today. See, e. g., Lambert Wicklund, 520 292 (1997) (per curiam); supra, at 899 (joint opinion); Ohio Akron Center Reproductive Health, 502, 510-519 (1990); Hodgson, U.S., 461 (O'Connor, J., concurring part part); id., 497-501 (Kennedy, dissenting part).[2] dispute, hold, State restrict "`necessary, judgment, mother.'" *328 opinion) (quoting Roe, 164-165); Thornburgh American College Obstetricians Gynecologists, 476 747, 768-769 (1986); Assn. Kansas City, Mo., Inc. Ashcroft, 462 476, 482-486 (1983) Powell, J.); Central Mo. Danforth, 428 52, 79 (1976). Third, taken real issue factual this litigation: some very small percentage cases, adult women, need immediate avert serious often irreversible damage See 2d, 65, n. 4. maintained most all State's "competing harms" should both patient needs abortion. 627:3(I) (1996) (for liability, "[c]onduct actor believes harm . another justifiable desirability urgency avoiding such outweigh, according ordinary standards reasonableness, sought prevented defining offense charged"); 627:1 (similar liability). But these reliably 65-66; F.3d, 61-62. And conceded that, apply manner subjects significant risks. Reply Brief Petitioner 2, 8, 11; Tr. Oral Arg. 6, 14. III turn When applied harms women's health, relief? Generally speaking, confronting flaw statute, try limit solution problem. prefer, *329 example, enjoin only applications while leaving force, Raines, 362 17, 20-22 (1960), sever problematic portions remainder intact, Booker, 543 220, 227-229 Three interrelated principles inform approach remedies. nullify more legislature's work than necessary, know "[a] ruling unconstitutionality frustrates intent elected representatives people." Regan Time, Inc., 468 641, 652 (1984) opinion). axiomatic "statute facts yet valid another." Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. Bondurant, 257 282, 289 (1921). "normal rule" "partial, facial, invalidation course," extent reaches too far, otherwise left intact." Brockett Spokane Arcades, 472 491, 504 (1985); Tennessee Garner, 471 1 Grace, 171, 180-183 (1983). mindful mandate institutional competence limited, restrain ourselves "rewrit[ing] law conform requirements" even strive salvage it. Virginia Booksellers Assn., 484 383, 397 (1988). Our devise remedy entail quintessentially legislative depends how clearly articulated background rules easily can articulate 180-183, crafted narrow much contemplate striking down banning expressive displays public sidewalks near Building itself. later explained Grace "relatively simple matter" had previously distinguished *330 between buildings Amendment jurisprudence. Treasury Employees, 513 454, 479, 26 (1995). making distinctions murky context, where linedrawing inherently complex, call "far invasion domain" ought undertake. touchstone any about intent, cannot "use remedial powers circumvent legislature." Califano Westcott, 443 76, 94 (1979) (Powell, Dorchy Kansas, 264 286, 289-290 (1924) Brandeis, J.). After finding application portion next ask: Would legislature preferred all? generally 227; Minnesota Mille Lacs Band Chippewa Indians, 526 172, 191 (1999); Alaska Airlines, Brock, 480 678, 684 (1987); Champlin Refining Corporation Comm'n Okla., 286 210, 234 (1932); Employers' Liability Cases, 207 463, 501 (1908); Allen Louisiana, 103 80, 83-84 (1881); Trade-Mark 100 82, 97-98 (1879). while, wary legislatures rely intervention, "[i]t certainly dangerous could set net large catch possible offenders, leave step inside" announce applied. Reese, 92 214, 221 (1876). "This would, extent, substitute department government." case, chose blunt permanently enjoining Hampshire's thereby entirely. That understandable, we, too, *331 invalidated same flaw. Stenberg, addressed Nebraska so-called "partial birth abortion" unless procedure save life. Nebraska's lacked exception. 930 (lack "independent reaso[n]" ban unconstitutional). parties did ask for, contemplate, relief finely drawn. however, agree wholesale. Respondents, recognize possibility modest They pleaded "just proper," 13 (Complaint), oral argument carefully resolve 38, 40. Only few present So faithful then, injunction statute's application. There dispute intended susceptible notes contains severability clause providing "[i]f provision subdivision thereof circumstance invalid, invalidity affect effect applications." 132:28. hand, contend legislators way described. open question, determine first instance. *332 IV Either holding consistency toto obviate concern therefore pass courts' alternative holding. survive remand, separate vacated, remanded consistent opinion. ordered. NOTES [*] Briefs amici reversal filed Texas et al. Greg Abbott, Texas, Barry McBee, Edward Burbach, Ted Cruz, Joel L. Thollander, respective follows: Troy King Alabama, Mike Beebe Arkansas, John W. Suthers Colorado, M. Jane Brady Delaware, Charles Crist, Jr., Florida, G. Wasden Idaho, Phill Kline Cox Michigan, Jim Hood Mississippi, Stenehjem North Dakota, Petro Ohio, Thomas Corbett, Pennsylvania, Long South Paul Summers Tennessee, Mark Shurtleff Utah, Judith Williams Jagdmann Virginia, Patrick Crank Wyoming; Association Pro Life Gynecologists Aden; Law Justice Jay Alan Sekulow, P. Monaghan, Stuart Roth, Walter Weber; Physicians & Surgeons Dorinda C. Bordlee, Nikolas T. Nikas, James Hirsen; Eagle Forum Education Legal Defense Fund Andrew Schlafly; Family Research Council, Robert George; National Foundation Hodge; Legislators Teresa Stanton Collett; Rutherford Institute Whitehead Knicely; More Society Benjamin Linton Brejcha; Conference Catholic Bishops Chopko Moses; University Faculty Richard Wilkins; Lieutenant Governor Loren Leman Kevin Gilbert Clarkson; Tim Pawlenty Ms. Harlon Reeves Shackelford; Margie Riley Joseph Lynch, Jr.; Representative Kathleen Souza Clarke Forsythe Denise Burke; Weiers Len Munsil. affirmance Stephen Hut, Kimberly Parker; Adolescent Health Elizabeth McCallum, Susan Frietsche, David S. Cohen; Rights Sanford Cohen, Simon Heller, Priscilla Smith; Coalition Against Domestic Violence Maria Vullo Julie Goldscheid; Organizations Committed Women's Equality Brown; Religious Choice Caroline Lynch Katherine Hanna; Terie Norelli Kenneth Barnes. Horatio Storer Foundation, Bopp, Marzen; Unborn Children Ernest; Liberty Counsel Mathew Staver, Erik Stanley, Rena Lindevaldsen, Mary McAlister; NARAL Pro-Choice America Cavendish, Joseph, Leslie Hill; Maureen Curley Philip Moran. [1] Forty-four States, including (that is, consent notification) laws. Thirty-eight exceptions Ala. Code 26-21-5 (1992); 18.16.060 (2004); Ariz. 36-2152(G)(2) (West 2003); Ark. 20-16-802(2), 20-16-805(1) (2005 Supp.); Cal. Safety 123450 1996); Colo. 12-37.5-103(5) Del. Ann., Tit. 24, 1782(d), 1787 (1997); Fla. 390.01114(2)(d), (3)(b) 2006); Ga. 15-11-116 (2005); Idaho 18-609A(1)(a)(v) (Lexis Cum. 2005); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 750, 70/10 2004); Ind. 16-34-2-4 Iowa 135L.3 Kan. 65-6705(j)(1)(B) (2002); Ky. 311.720, 311.732 La. 40:1299.35.12 Mass. Gen. Laws, 112, 12S Mich. Laws 722.902(b), 722.905 2002); Miss. 41-41-57 Mont. 50-20-203(5), 50-20-208 Neb. 71-6906(1) (2003); Nev. 442.255(1) 9:17A-1.3, 9:17A-1.6 30-5-1 90-21.9 Cent. 14-02.1-03(1), 14-02.1-03.1(2) 2919.121(D) Okla. 63, 1-740.2(B) 18 Cons. 3203, 3206 23-4.7-4 (1996); 44-41-30(C)(1) 2005 p. 189; Tenn. 37-10-305 Tex. Occ. 164.052(a)(19) 2005), 419, 1.42(a)(19) (2005) (enrolled); Utah 76-7-301(2), 76-7-305 Va. 18.2-76 16-2F-5 2001); Wis. 48.375 (2003-2004). Two give sufficient discretion Me. 22, 1597-A Md. 20-103 Four, make emergency. 132:26 Minn. 144.343 188.028 (2000); Wyo. 35-6-118 (2003). [2] sad reality, women loving supportive aiding 444 450-451, 36 Court) (holding requiring parents, observing "the common reason" notify second "was child- spouse-batterer, provoked abuse" (citation omitted)). Department Human Services, Administration Children, Youth Families, Child Maltreatment 63 (parents perpetrators 79.7% cases reported abuse neglect).

Classification Label: 4