New Jersey defends keeping newborn blood samples; parents demand consent.
Parents challenge New Jersey's retention of newborn blood spots without consent. The state defends its policy, a federal judge dismisses the amended claims, and parents' counsel announces an intended appeal.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Parents of children screened in New Jersey challenge the retention of their children's remaining newborn blood samples after screening without parental consent. State defendants argue that the claims fail on jurisdictional and constitutional grounds. On October 30, 2026, Judge Georgette Castner dismissed the amended claims. The Institute for Justice, which represents the parents, announced that they intend to appeal.
The opinion distinguishes retention from initial screening and from alleged future misuse. It describes a 2024 policy change from 23-year retention to two years for negative results and ten years for positive results. It holds that the parents lack standing over use or potential sharing of blood spots.
Read the full background
The October 30 opinion (opens in a new tab) addresses standing, mootness and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments separately. A state program manager attests that the named children's samples were used only for initial screening and are kept because of plaintiffs' request during the litigation.
Timeline
4 timeline entries on this page. Dates: November 2, 2023 to October 30, 2026
November 2023
Parents file challenge to newborn blood-spot retention.
Claim
The opinion records the initial complaint by Hannah Lovaglio and Erica and Jeremiah Jedynak.
[01]Lovaglio v. Baston: opinion dismissing amended blood-spot claims
The opinion addresses retention separately from initial screening, describes the changed policy and resolves standing, mootness and constitutional claims on this record.
Lovaglio v. Baston: opinion dismissing amended blood-spot claimsDocument 83, pp. 2-6, 14-29
June 2024
New Jersey shortens default blood-spot retention periods.
The opinion describes a voluntary shortening of retention periods in 2024 and cites June 20, 2024 as the new policy's effective date. It describes two years for negative results and ten years for positive results, replacing the earlier 23-year period.
[01]Lovaglio v. Baston: opinion dismissing amended blood-spot claims
The opinion addresses retention separately from initial screening, describes the changed policy and resolves standing, mootness and constitutional claims on this record.
Lovaglio v. Baston: opinion dismissing amended blood-spot claimsDocument 83, pp. 2-6, 14-29
October 2026
Federal court dismisses amended blood-spot claims.
The opinion resolves jurisdictional issues and rejects the pleaded Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment theories.
[01]Lovaglio v. Baston: opinion dismissing amended blood-spot claims
The opinion addresses retention separately from initial screening, describes the changed policy and resolves standing, mootness and constitutional claims on this record.
Lovaglio v. Baston: opinion dismissing amended blood-spot claimsDocument 83, pp. 2-6, 14-29Parents' counsel announces an intended appeal.
The Institute for Justice says the parents will appeal the dismissal; this announcement is distinct from a filed appellate notice.
[02]Institute for Justice announces intended appeal of newborn blood-spot dismissal
The parents' counsel criticizes retention without consent and announces an intended appeal. The release does not establish that an appeal was filed.
Institute for Justice announces intended appeal of newborn blood-spot dismissalOctober 30 release and statements by counsel and Erica Jedynak
Arguments
Documented position
The Second Amended Complaint, paragraph 151, and plaintiffs' opposition brief, as quoted in the October 30 opinion; the Institute for Justice's response.
Parents should control retention after screening is complete.
The Second Amended Complaint and plaintiffs' opposition brief treat initial screening and subsequent retention as distinct Fourth Amendment events requiring independent justification, as quoted in the opinion. The Institute for Justice's release separately argues that taking and keeping genetic information requires informed parental consent.
Limit of this argument
The court rejected the pleaded constitutional theories and found alleged future use and sharing too speculative for standing. Counsel announced an intention to appeal.
Read sources
Sources
- Lovaglio v. Baston: opinion dismissing amended blood-spot claimsDocument 83, pp. 2-6, 14-29
- Institute for Justice announces intended appeal of newborn blood-spot dismissalOctober 30 release and statements by counsel and Erica Jedynak
Documented position
State defendants' motion to dismiss as described at pages 24 and 28 of the October 30 opinion, citing the motion, ECF No. 78-2 at 36-50.
The state disputes a constitutional right to require consent for retention.
The defendants argue that the plaintiffs identify no sufficient possessory interest and that any search or seizure would be reasonable under the special-needs exception. They also dispute that retention is a medical decision implicating a fundamental parental right.
Limit of this argument
The court found no plausibly pleaded possessory interest or fundamental parental right and did not reach the special-needs or compelling-interest arguments.
Read sources
Sources
- Lovaglio v. Baston: opinion dismissing amended blood-spot claimsDocument 83, pp. 2-6, 14-29
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
1 response. Newest first.
Institute for JusticeInstitute for Justice, through its attorney Daniel Woislaw in the firm's own releaseDirectly involvedBefore this statement
IJ published Woislaw's response on October 30 after the court dismissed the parents' suit. He argues the ruling leaves parents without a claim to their baby's blood or genetic material.
"But the state doesn’t own your blood and DNA simply because it took that blood, without your consent, from your veins"
CondemnedCase context: New Jersey defends keeping newborn blood samples; parents demand consent.
Full statement and sources
Institute for Justice attorney Daniel Woislaw rejects retaining newborn blood without parental consent.
After the statement
He says IJ looks forward to appealing and that parents have a right to informed consent before the state can take and keep their children's genetic information.
Institute for Justice announces intended appeal of newborn blood-spot dismissalOctober 30 release and statements by counsel and Erica JedynakWhy this label?
IJ's release challenges retention without consent through its attorney, who rejects state ownership of blood and genetic material.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(2)
Original text
Lovaglio v. Baston: opinion dismissing amended blood-spot claims
Relevant passage: Document 83, pp. 2-6, 14-29
About this source
The opinion addresses retention separately from initial screening, describes the changed policy and resolves standing, mootness and constitutional claims on this record.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Institute for Justice announces intended appeal of newborn blood-spot dismissal
Relevant passage: October 30 release and statements by counsel and Erica Jedynak
About this source
The parents' counsel criticizes retention without consent and announces an intended appeal. The release does not establish that an appeal was filed.
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- New Jersey defends keeping newborn blood samples; parents demand consent.
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/new-jersey-newborn-blood-spots-retention-parental-consent
The Dispute Index. "New Jersey defends keeping newborn blood samples; parents demand consent.". First published: 2026-11-03. Last updated: 2026-11-03. https://disputeindex.com/cases/new-jersey-newborn-blood-spots-retention-parental-consent