
Yesterday, a unanimous Supreme Court strongly reaffirmed a principle that has existed in our case law for over 150 years: laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas cannot be patented. This principle may seem obvious, but companies have sidestepped it for years by cleverly drafting applications that pass muster with the patent office.
The decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs. involved patents on methods of correlating blood test results and drug toxicity. The Court found them invalid because the patents do nothing more than claim a law of nature -- how a patient reacts to a drug.
The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that these patents improperly prevent physicians from considering whether to change a patient’s treatment in light of blood test results and therefore violate patent law and the First Amendment, which protects scientific thought. Prometheus’ monopoly allowed it to sue when Mayo wanted to develop and use its own test for determining whether a patient was responding well to a drug.
The Court acknowledged the harmful impact on medicine and innovation: “Unlike, say, a typical patent on a new drug or a new way of using an existing drug, the patent claims do not confine their reach to particular applications of those laws [of nature] . . . . they tie up the doctor’s subsequent treatment decision.” While it is possible for others to come up with a new drug without infringing patents on existing drugs, a doctor cannot invent around the natural reaction of a patient to a drug. We have similarly argued that patents on human genes are a barrier to advancements in medicine and research because they grant a monopoly on the genes themselves.
Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power to issue patents if they “promote the progress of science.” The Court’s decision reinforced this constitutional limitation by recognizing that patents on laws and products of nature can impede, rather than encourage, future innovation.
If you agree that human genes should not be patented, join our Take Back Our Genes campaign!
(Originally posted on ACS Blog.)
Learn more about gene patenting: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseJul 2025
Women's Rights
Plaintiffs in Head Start Lawsuit File Motion to Amend Complaint to Challenge New HHS Rule Targeting Immigrant Families
SEATTLE, Wash. — Today, parent advocacy groups and a coalition of Head Start providers — plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s unlawful attacks on the Head Start program — announced they have requested to amend their complaint to challenge the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) latest directive, which seeks to exclude many immigrant families from accessing early childhood education by restricting participation in Head Start based on immigration status. Yesterday, HHS issued a directive reinterpreting a nearly 30-year-old law to expand the definition of “federal public benefit” under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) to now include Head Start — effectively making some immigrant children ineligible for the first time in the program’s history. The agency provided no implementation guidance to Head Start agencies and declared the policy effective immediately, while also noting that PRWORA’s verification requirements remain unchanged. The lack of clarity around how the directive will be enforced is creating confusion and fear among providers and families alike. “In Chicago, our programs already see families living in fear — including refugees, undocumented parents, and those here on student visas. Many are paralyzed, unsure if it’s safe to bring their children to Head Start. This directive adds to that fear, denying children critical educational opportunities and threatening the well-being of entire communities,” said Lauri Frichtl, executive director, Illinois Head Start. In response, plaintiffs are seeking to amend their lawsuit to challenge this unlawful reinterpretation, which contradicts PRWORA and the Head Start Act and threatens to undermine a program that has served over 40 million children and families across the country. "In Alameda County, hundreds of children and thousands of jobs will be affected by this directive. Locally over half of the children from these programs come from immigrant families and the directive will significantly chill participation in our Head Start programs,” said Clarissa Doutherd, executive director of Parent Voices Oakland. “Immigrants are threaded through the fabric of our communities and threatening them tears communities apart.” The plaintiffs include parent groups Parent Voices Oakland and Family Forward Oregon, and the Head Start associations of Washington state, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs in the case are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Washington, the ACLU of Illinois, and the Impact Fund. “HHS is defying Congress by attempting to impose an immigration-based restriction that neither PRWORA nor the Head Start Act requires or permits,” said Ming-Qi Chu, deputy director of the Women's Rights Project at the ACLU. “In the nearly 30 years since Congress enacted PRWORA, Head Start has never been understood as a ‘federal public benefit.’ Reinterpreting PRWORA now to exclude immigrant children is unlawful and a direct attack on some of the very families this program was created to serve. It is clearly inconsistent with the statute’s text and Congress’ purpose.” “Not only are these exclusions illegal, but the administration has escalated its attack on Head Start, children, and families by declaring that HHS’s unilateral reinterpretation of a law passed by Congress takes effect immediately. This is a clear attempt to evade the required review process, and we are asking the Court to hold the administration accountable to the rule of law,” said Lori Rifkin, litigation director at the Impact Fund. The administration's staff cuts, delays, and immigration directive threaten the vital early education, health, and social services that more than 800,000 children and families rely on each year. Plaintiffs are urging the court to declare this multi-pronged dismantling of Head Start unlawful and unconstitutional, and to block the administration’s continued defiance of Congress’ mandate to serve low-income families. An overview of the case can be found here. A copy of the motion to amend complaint can be found here.Court Case: Washington State Association of Head Start and Early Childhood Assistance and Education Program et al., Robert F. Kennedy et al.Affiliates: Illinois, Washington -
Press ReleaseJul 2025
Women's Rights
Plaintiffs in Head Start Case Vow to Challenge New HHS Rule Seeking to Block Some Immigrant Families from Accessing Early Childhood Education
WASHINGTON — Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a press release announcing a notice of interpretation of a nearly 30-year-old law to restrict access to critical early education programs for immigrant families. The agency’s action unlawfully expands the definition of “federal public benefit” for HHS under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) to include Head Start — effectively making certain children ineligible for Head Start for the first time in the program’s history. HHS’s notice offers no implementation guidance to Head Start agencies and declares the interpretation is effective immediately. HHS also notes that verification requirements under PRWORA remain unchanged, which makes the full scope of the operational impact of the policy unclear. If the notice takes effect, plaintiffs in a lawsuit that was filed in April challenging attacks by the Trump administration to Head Start vow to amend their complaint to fight back against this new attack on Head Start. The plaintiffs include parent groups Parent Voices Oakland and Family Forward Oregon, and the Head Start associations of Washington state, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs in the case are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Washington, the ACLU of Illinois, and the Impact Fund. “Head Start was created to serve low-income children and families, including immigrant communities who are vital to our economy and our future. This directive attempts to force agencies to turn away the very families we are legally mandated to support. It’s a cruel and unlawful move that threatens the wellbeing of children and the stability of entire communities,” said Joel Ryan, executive director, Washington State Head Start & Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program. “Head Start has been a cornerstone in communities across the country. We urge Head Start providers to continue to serve children and refrain from making any immediate changes to enrollment policy until they have an opportunity to fully evaluate their legal obligations,” said Jennie Mauer, executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association. “As part of its broader attack on working families, this administration is unlawfully attempting to rewrite the PRWORA to make it harder for children to access critical early childhood education. No agency – including HHS – has ever defined early education as a restricted ‘federal public benefit,’” said Jennesa Calvo-Friedman, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. “The Head Start Act clearly states it is an education program with the purpose to ‘promote the school readiness of low-income children,’ and includes both statutory and regulatory criteria which impose no eligibility restriction based on immigration status.” "Implementation of this directive will create fear and confusion for immigrant families about enrolling their children in Head Start regardless of what their legal status may be. This will harm children and destabilize Head Start programs,” said Lori Rifkin, litigation director at the Impact Fund. “If the administration moves forward with publication of this notice, we will take legal action.” The case page can be found here.Court Case: Washington State Association of Head Start and Early Childhood Assistance and Education Program et al., Robert F. Kennedy et al.Affiliates: Washington, Illinois -
Press ReleaseJul 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Women's Rights
Supreme Court Will Hear Challenges to Bans on Athletic Participation by Transgender Students
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court today granted certiorari in two federal court cases involving transgender youth challenging bans on their participation in local school and college sports. “Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status. Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do–to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” said Joshua Block, Senior Counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.” “Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.” Earlier this year, efforts to enact a national ban failed in the U.S. Congress. Since 2020, 27 states have banned transgender youth from playing school sports. Many of these bans allow for invasive forms of sex testing that put all female student athletes at risk and open the door for any school official or adult to question and harass young women. In Florida, a 15-year-old junior varsity volleyball player was the subject of a police investigation after an anonymous accusation, prompting local officials to draft a 500-page report investigating her medical history, body weight, and anatomy. In Utah, a teenage basketball player was accused of being transgender by a member of the state board of education, leading to threats of violence against her and her family, and a teenager in Maine faced a similar attack from a state senator. In May, President Donald Trump bullied a 16-year-old transgender girl for participating in a high school track meet. Many women athletes have spoken out against bullying and discrimination against transgender student athletes. This includes Billie Jean King, Megan Rapinoe, Dawn Staley, Sue Bird, and Brianna Turner, as well as leading organizations fighting for gender equality in athletics including the Women’s Sports Foundation, the Women’s National Basketball Player’s Association, and the National Women’s Law Center. The two cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear include: Little v. Hecox, a challenge brought by one transgender and one cisgender student athlete against Idaho’s 2020 ban on transgender athletes and requirements for sex testing West Virginia v. B.P.J., a challenge brought by a teenage transgender girl against West Virginia’s 2021 ban on transgender athletic participation The two cases charge the bans with violating the rights of transgender and cisgender female students under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. In addition, West Virginia v. B.P.J. argues that the bans violate Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs. Federal courts have blocked enforcement of these bans in both lawsuits. These cases are part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.Affiliates: Idaho, West Virginia -
Press ReleaseJun 2025
Reproductive Freedom
Women's Rights
ACLU Responds to Supreme Court Greenlighting State Efforts to “Defund” Planned Parenthood
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled today that Medicaid patients do not have a right to sue to enforce their right to a qualified health care provider of choice under the Medicaid statute. The decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic will facilitate some states’ politically motivated efforts to block low-income patients’ access to certain health care providers and may effectively defund Planned Parenthood and other disfavored providers by barring them from state Medicaid programs. “The majority decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic contradicts Congress’s clear purpose to give Medicaid patients their choice of qualified health care providers and also wrongly curtails patients’ rights to vindicate their choice of provider through Section 1983,” said Cecillia Wang, National Legal Director for the ACLU. “The decision may have the effect of blocking patients’ access to birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment for patients in South Carolina and potentially will permit state officials to override patients’ choice of provider based on political whims.” “The impact of this decision on our reproductive freedom will be compounded if Congress follows through on federal efforts to 'defund' Planned Parenthood by prohibiting patients from choosing Planned Parenthood health centers for their care,” said Deirdre Schifeling, Chief Political and Advocacy Officer of the ACLU. “Doing so would force the closure of hundreds of Planned Parenthood health centers nationwide, robbing people of their freedom to get reproductive health care from trusted providers in their communities and would result in shuttering 1 in 4 of the country’s abortion providers. "Make no mistake: our reproductive freedom is still under siege. The ACLU remains committed to fighting for Planned Parenthood, abortion access, and the fundamental human right to control one’s own body using every tool we have.