(CN) — A unanimous three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit ruled on Wednesday that Michigan’s storing of newborn blood sample data does not violate a parent’s right to direct the medical care of their children or their constitutional rights.
The opinion written by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Griffin found that storing a newborn’s blood sample at birth is not medical care and does not violate parental rights. Griffin ordered the injunction requiring the destruction of the stored data to be vacated.
“Under no reading of the caselaw can one argue that the literal act of storing involves medical treatment, diagnosis, or advice, or that this act intrudes on bodily integrity. Nor do the other uses—quality assurance, test improvement, test development, research, and victim identification—constitute medical care for the child who provided the blood spots,” wrote Griffin.
Griffin, a George W. Bush appointee, also wrote that no court has recognized that parents have a fundamental right to refuse to have the anonymized blood samples of their children be used for purposes unrelated to their own medical care.
The blood samples are taken as part of Michigan’s newborn screening program, which checks for various health issues and, according to health officials, identifies more than 250 conditions in newborns per year.
Since 2010, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services has been requesting parental consent to use newborn blood spot samples for research. Although a parent can request the return or destruction of the samples, the data is still retained in an electronic database.
The program was challenged by four parents who sued the state in 2018, claiming that the taking of blood samples violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. After years of litigation, a district court ordered the destruction of the blood samples.
The state agreed to destroy all stored blood spot samples intended for potential parental use. It returned the plaintiffs’ children’s samples, but refused to destroy the related data, prompting an appeal.
The plaintiffs argued that the appeal was moot since the samples had been returned; however, the Sixth Circuit agreed to hear the case due to its broader impact on the screening program.
The court ultimately found that storing the dried blood spots and related data does not constitute an unreasonable search or seizure.
“For instance, defendants’ uses of the stored blood spots for equipment calibration and improving screening program tests are not searches because they do not reveal any information about the individual plaintiff-children,” wrote Griffin.
Additionally, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently claim or provide evidence that they had a property interest in the dried blood spots and data, and reversed the district court’s ruling in favor of the parents on this issue.
Joining Griffin on the panel was U.S. Circuit Judge John Nalbandian, a Donald Trump appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Andre Mathis, who was appointed to the court by Joe Biden.
