ADAM KANUSZEWSKI; ASHLEY KANUSZEWSKI; D.W.L., R.F.K., and C.K.K., minors; SHANNON LAPORTE; M.T.L. and E.M.O., minors; LYNNETTE WIEGAND; L.R.W., C.J.W., H.J.W., and M.L.W., minors v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., DR. SANDIP SHAH, in his official capacity; DR. SARAH LYON-CALLO, in her official capacity; MARY KLEYN, in her official capacity; MICHIGAN NEONATAL BIOBANK, INC., aka Michigan Neonatal Biorepository; ELIZABETH HERTEL, in her official capacity; CHRISTOPHER KRAUSE, in his official capacity - Articles

All Content

ADAM KANUSZEWSKI; ASHLEY KANUSZEWSKI; D.W.L., R.F.K., and C.K.K., minors; SHANNON LAPORTE; M.T.L. and E.M.O., minors; LYNNETTE WIEGAND; L.R.W., C.J.W., H.J.W., and M.L.W., minors v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., DR. SANDIP SHAH, in his official capacity; DR. SARAH LYON-CALLO, in her official capacity; MARY KLEYN, in her official capacity; MICHIGAN NEONATAL BIOBANK, INC., aka Michigan Neonatal Biorepository; ELIZABETH HERTEL, in her official capacity; CHRISTOPHER KRAUSE, in his official capacity

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jun 25, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Jeremy C. Kennedy, PEAR, SPERLING, EGGAN & DANIELS, P.C., Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellants Krause and Michigan Neonatal BioBank.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Daniel J. Ping, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants Shah, Lyon-Callo, Kleyn, and Hertel.

Attorneys 3: ARGUED: Philip L. Ellison, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL, PLC, Hemlock, Michigan, for Appellees.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Jeremy C. Kennedy, PEAR, SPERLING, EGGAN & DANIELS, P.C., Ann Arbor, Michigan, Daniel J. Ping, Aaron W. Levin, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Philip L. Ellison, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL, PLC, Hemlock, Michigan, for Appellees.

Attorneys 6: ON BRIEF: Kimberly A. Jansen, Joshua G. Vincent, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): GRIFFIN, NALBANDIAN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. The State of Michigan collects blood samples from newborn babies and screens them for diseases as part of its newborn screening program. This program is not unique. Every state has one, and more than 98% of children born in the United States are tested at birth. These programs are estimated to have saved thousands of infant lives across the country. However laudable any government program may be, it must withstand the rigors of constitutional scrutiny. Plaintiffs—four parents and their nine children who were born in Michigan and had their heels pricked and blood drawn as part of the newborn screening program—contend that Michigan’s scheme entails coercive, non-consensual taking and keeping of baby blood for the state’s profit, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court initially dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, but a prior panel of our court reversed and remanded several claims. Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 927 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2019) (Kanuszewski I). Ultimately, the district court granted judgment in plaintiffs’ favor on nearly all their remaining claims and ordered defendants to return or destroy plaintiffs’ stored blood spots and data collected under the program. Doing so was erroneous because the district court over-extended our prior opinion’s holdings and failed to apply the law to the facts as developed during discovery. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment in plaintiffs’ favor on all Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment claims and vacate the injunction requiring defendants to destroy the stored data.

Attachments: