Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that invalidating a statute is “not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunc-tive relief’
• holding that lower courts should not have invalidated the entire statute, but should have accounted for the legislature’s policy choices and the statute’s severability clause
• holding that lower courts should have invalidated only the unconstitutional applications of a statute, rather than the entire statute, given its severability clause
• holding that in general, courts should “enjoin only the unconstitutional applications of a statute… [or] sever its problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.”
• holding that “invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified” when “lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief”
• stating that \we restrain ourselves from rewriting state law to conform it to constitutional requirements even as we strive to salvage it\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).