This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Kelly A. Ayotte, the Court of Appeals struck down New Hampshire's parental notification act on its face, based on a potential application that respondents concede would arise only in a very small fraction of cases, rendering the act ineffective in most applications.
Background and question before the Court
According to Kelly A. Ayotte, the Court of Appeals struck down New Hampshire's parental notification act on its face, based on a potential application that respondents concede would arise only in a very small fraction of cases, rendering the act ineffective in most applications.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
Petitioner Kelly A. Ayotte argues that the Court of Appeals struck down the act on its face based on a potential application that would occur only in a tiny fraction of cases, thereby denying state officials the opportunity to enforce the statute within constitutional limits.
Respondent Position
According to MS. DALVEN, respondent counsel Ms. Dalven states that the complaint seeks a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional and an injunction enjoining it in its entirety, and that if that cannot be obtained, they want no relief.
Ms. Dalven argues that the case is not the better course for three reasons, including uncertainty about which exception the New Hampshire legislature would have chosen and concerns about rewriting the law.
According to MS. DALVEN, ms. Dalven notes that no bill has been put forward to amend the statute.
What happened at oral argument
The case was heard before the Supreme Court at 11:02 a.m.
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter interrupted counsel to clarify a point of the petitioner’s position.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the petitioner’s reference was to the specific act under review or to the broader law and constitutional protections.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy later questioned whether the record explained the medical profession’s definition of “immediate” regarding the time needed to make a telephone call to a judge.
Justice Breyer asked whether the petitioner would object to an injunction that bars the statute’s application in any circumstance where a doctor, in good faith, believes there is a health emergency.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts noted that the case was submitted at 11:53 a.m.
- [1] 8194c521be25a7f6b914-r1-dc05b8b416e9b39d.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 8194c521be25a7f6b914-r1-dc05b8b416e9b39d.pdf, p. 4
- [3] 8194c521be25a7f6b914-r1-dc05b8b416e9b39d.pdf, p. 6
- [4] 8194c521be25a7f6b914-r1-dc05b8b416e9b39d.pdf, p. 30
- [5] 8194c521be25a7f6b914-r1-dc05b8b416e9b39d.pdf, p. 41
- [6] 8194c521be25a7f6b914-r1-dc05b8b416e9b39d.pdf, p. 48
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 8194c521be25a7f6b914-r1-dc05b8b416e9b39d.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.