The U.S. Supreme Court case Hodgson et al. v. Minnesota et al., 1989, dealt with a Minnesota law that required both parents to be notified before their minor daughter could have an abortion unless she obtained a judicial bypass or certified that she had been abused by one of them. The court upheld the two-parent notification requirement but struck down the need for both parents' consent if there was no abuse certification option available, as it posed an undue burden on minors seeking abortions and violated their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In this ruling, the court recognized parental interests in child-rearing decisions while also acknowledging young women's right to make personal health decisions without unnecessary government interference. However, they maintained that states can regulate abortions within certain limits to protect maternal health and potential life.

In the dissenting opinion for Hodgson v. Minnesota, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law requiring both parents to be notified before an abortion could take place was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases. He contended that if the court believed such laws served a legitimate state interest in protecting minors and ensuring family integrity, it should have upheld all aspects of Minnesota’s statute without exception - including its two-parent notification requirement. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's use of "undue burden" standard as vague and subjective which would lead to arbitrary application in future cases. Lastly, he expressed concern over judicial activism by suggesting that courts were stepping beyond their constitutional role by creating new standards not found within the text or history of Constitution.