The Issue
Nearly every baby born in the US has a few drops of blood taken shortly after birth for newborn screening — a hugely valuable public-health program that detects rare, treatable disorders early and saves lives. The lawsuits are not about that screening. They target what some states do with the leftover “blood spots” afterward: retaining them for years or decades and using them for secondary purposes — research, calibration, or, in at least one case, providing a sample in response to a law-enforcement DNA subpoena — often without clearly informing or getting consent from parents. Civil-rights groups and parents argue that secretly storing and using a child’s DNA this way raises serious privacy and constitutional concerns.
The distinction is crucial: the fight is over consent and secondary use, not over the screening that protects newborns.
The Litigation
New Jersey has been a focal point: a civil-rights group sued in 2023 over the state’s long-running, largely undisclosed retention of blood spots and their use beyond disease detection. A federal judge dismissed the parents’ constitutional claims, but the litigation and public pressure pushed the state to change its policy — moving to destroy retained samples after a couple of years unless a parent asks otherwise. Similar disputes have arisen in other states, including Michigan and Texas, where earlier cases led to the destruction of millions of stored samples. So the legal wins have been mixed, but the transparency and policy changes have been real.
Courts have often been skeptical of the constitutional claims even as states tightened their practices.
What Parents Should Know
Newborn screening is safe, standard and strongly recommended — it catches conditions that are far more dangerous if missed. Separately, parents who have concerns about long-term storage or secondary use of the leftover sample can ask their state’s health department about its retention policy and whether they can opt out of storage or research use. The takeaway is to support the screening while asking informed questions about what happens to the sample afterward.
Before You Act
Thinking About Filing a Claim?
Most plaintiff lawyers offer a free initial consultation and work on contingency, meaning no fee unless there is a recovery. LawsuitWatch is not a law firm: we publish explainers, and we do not provide legal advice, representation or referrals. Your state bar directory is the reliable place to find and verify a lawyer.
Newborn Blood Spot Lawsuit: The Baby-DNA Privacy Fight: Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to the most common questions about this case and your legal options.
What is the newborn blood spot lawsuit about?
Parents and civil-rights groups have sued states for secretly retaining and reusing the leftover 'blood spots' taken from newborns for disease screening — for research, calibration or even a police DNA subpoena — often without clear consent. It targets retention and secondary use, not the screening itself.
Does this mean newborn screening is unsafe?
No. Newborn screening is safe, standard and strongly recommended — it detects rare, treatable disorders early and saves lives. The lawsuits concern only what states do with the leftover sample afterward, especially storage and secondary use without consent.
What can concerned parents do?
Ask your state health department about its blood-spot retention policy and whether you can opt out of long-term storage or research use, while still getting the recommended screening that protects your baby.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case status, eligibility criteria, and any amounts described are as reported at the date shown and may change. Consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction about your own situation.