The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Monday ruled that parents may have plausible constitutional claims against the state of Michigan for the ongoing storage and use of blood samples collected from nearly all newborn babies in the state.

A group of Michigan parents sued the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and the Michigan Neonatal BioBank, claiming that the state’s Newborn Screening Program is unconstitutional, because it allegedly violated their due process right by not allowing them to accept or reject the medical procedure before collecting the babies’ blood, and because it allegedly constituted an unconstitutional search or seizure.

Michigan Neonatal BioBank is responsible for the storage of the blood samples, and future use by the state, after they are screened for more than 50 diseases during the initial screening. The Sixth Circuit says that the state should be given the opportunity to explain the purpose of continuing storage after screening.

With respect to the standing issue, the court focuses on the injury in fact element, and held that plaintiffs have standing for damages, but not injunctive relief because future harms do not constitute injury in fact. However, state sovereign immunity and qualified immunity bar all claims of violation against parents’ due process rights relating to the initial collection of blood samples. On the other hand, the court held that parents have sufficiently alleged violation of their fundamental rights regarding Michigan’s retention of the blood samples, and remanded the issue. The court also remanded the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief for Michigan’s ongoing storage of the blood samples.