Whether the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit a state from indefinitely storing and using newborn genetic material without parental consent

No question identified. : en banc via an order issued on August 12, 2025. A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit B. This Court’s jurisdiction would be invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). 2. In Kanuszewski II, plaintiffs-parents and their children challenged Michigan’s Newborn Screening Program, alleging that the state’s retention and use of dried blood spots (taken at birth) without consent violated the United States Constitution. 3. Prior to trial and following a five-day trial, the District Court found violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dept of Health and Human Services, 684 F. Supp. 3d 637 (E.D. Mich. 2023). 4. In response, the State returned the Children’s blood spots and thus, in Plaintiffs’ view, rendered a large portion of the State Defendants’ appeal moot. 5. Nevertheless, the Sixth Circuit reversed holding that (1) the retention and use of anonymized blood spots do not intrude on parents’ fundamental right to direct medical care under the Due Process Clause, and (2) Plaintiffs failed to prove a possessory interest necessary for a Fourth Amendment seizure claim. 6. Plaintiffs believe that the Sixth Circuit panel disregarded binding holdings from Kanuszewski I,1 which recognized that post-screening retention and use of newborn blood spots implicated both (a) parents’ Fourteenth Amendment right to direct medical care of their children and (b) the children’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. 7. The later filed petition for rehearing en banc was denied. 1 Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dep't of Health and Human Services, 927 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2019). 8. By incorrectly treating those holdings as “assumptions” rather than binding precedent, the panel created intra-circuit inconsistency and undermined judicial stability. 9. Because the State had already returned or destroyed the blood spots pursuant to an injunction before the panel’s ruling, those claims were moot. 10. The petition will present questions of mootness and the proper application of Munsingwear vacatur. 11. Under United States v. Munsingwear Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950), the proper remedy was vacatur of the lower court’s ruling—not a merits decision. 12. Appellants assert that the panel improperly issued precedent on moot claims, effectively issuing an advisory opinion beyond Article III authority. 13. Additionally, the live claims regarding retention of genetic data were wrongly dismissed. 14. Appellants argue that indefinite storage of highly sensitive medical and genetic data without consent constitutes both a search (intrusion into privacy) anda seizure (continuing possessory interference). 15. The panel’s contrary ruling ignored Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n and other Supreme Court precedents recognizing strong privacy protections for medical and physiological data. 16. Appellants stress that the case raises nationally significant constitutional questions about genetic privacy, government data retention, and parental autonomy. 17. The indefinite storage and sale of newborns’ genetic material without informed consent is an “Orwellian” invasion of privacy that courts must be restrained. 18. Petitioners respectfully request an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. 19. Absent an extension, a petition for a writ of certiorari would be due on November 10, 2025. This application is being filed more than 10 days in advance of that date, and no prior application has been made in this case. 20. Asixty (60) day extension would allow Petitioners sufficient time to fully prepare the needed petition for filing. 21. Counsel is lead attorney in Pung v. Isabella Cnty., Mich. (No. 25-95), in which this Court recently granted certiorari. Merits briefing in that case, along with other ongoing matters and appellate oral arguments, requires substantial attention in the coming weeks and will interfere with the ability to prepare the petition here absent an extension. 22. These oth