The U.S. Supreme Court case Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General of New Hampshire v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England et al., 2005 revolved around a New Hampshire law requiring parental notification before a minor could have an abortion, with no exception for medical emergencies that threatened the minor's health. The First Circuit Court had previously ruled the entire law unconstitutional due to this lack of emergency provision and ordered its complete nullification. However, in a unanimous decision by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court vacated this ruling and remanded it back to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with their opinion - which was that only problematic applications of such laws should be invalidated rather than striking down whole statutes; thus suggesting that if certain parts were found unconstitutional they could be severed from the rest without invalidating everything else.

In the dissenting opinion for Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Supreme Court should not have remanded the case back to lower courts but instead should have struck down New Hampshire's parental notification law in its entirety. He disagreed with the majority's decision to apply a "salvage operation" rather than a "facial invalidation". According to him, this approach was inconsistent with precedent and allowed judges too much discretion in determining which applications of a statute were unconstitutional. Furthermore, he believed that if even one application of a statute is found unconstitutional, then it must be invalidated entirely. In his view, by sending the case back for further proceedings on narrower grounds related only to health emergencies faced by pregnant minors seeking abortions without notifying their parents violated constitutional principles and judicial norms.