Today, the Supreme Court granted our petition seeking review of an appellate court’s 2-1 ruling upholding patents on two human genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. We represent 20 plaintiffs, including geneticists, patients, and scientific organizations representing over 150,000 pathologists and laboratory professionals. The case is the first challenging whether human genes can be patented.
BRCA1 and BRCA2 are two of the 23,000 genes in the human genome, 20 percent of which have been patented. We all have these genes, but women with certain genetic mutations are estimated to have up to an 85 percent lifetime risk for breast cancer and 50 percent risk for ovarian cancer. Myriad Genetics obtained patents on the “isolated” forms of the two genes, which simply means it patented the human gene once removed from the cell. This includes the BRCA genes from every person in the United States. Myriad has enforced its patents on the genes so that it has a monopoly on BRCA genetic testing.
What would be the impact of a Supreme Court ruling against human gene patents?
- Gene patentholders could not threaten or shut down other laboratories from offering genetic testing. E.g., Myriad sued the University of Pennsylvania laboratory run by plaintiffs Arupa Ganguly and Haig Kazazian, forcing them to stop testing the BRCA genes, even though their test was different from Myriad’s and cost less.
- Gene patentholders could not prevent others from providing genetic testing that draws on new developments in genetic research. E.g., Myriad denied plaintiff Ellen Matloff’s request to allow Yale to screen patients for BRCA genetic mutations that were excluded from Myriad’s standard test, but shown by the scientific community to be associated with cancer risk, leading to false negative test results.
- Patients would not be barred from getting a second opinion or testing at a lower cost because a patentholder has a monopoly on a gene. E.g., Our plaintiff Lisbeth Ceriani, a young breast cancer survivor who needed to determine her ovarian cancer risk, could not afford to pay $4,000 out of pocket for Myriad’s testing and Myriad refused to contract with her insurance company, which was willing to provide coverage.
- Genetic testing could be offered that screens multiple genes for certain conditions, giving patients and doctors a better understanding of how genetic factors might affect diagnosis and treatment. E.g., Genetic tests currently exist to screen the multiple genes now associated with breast and ovarian cancer, but because geneticists would be legally liable.
- No single laboratory could use its patents to control most of the data about a gene. E.g., a huge amount of information about people’s BRCA genes and stopped contributing its data to the Breast Cancer Information Core, an international scientific effort to better understand these genes and their connections to cancer.
- Universities, laboratories, and biotechnology companies could develop (and patent, if they choose) new tests, drugs, and other inventions based on genetic information and sequencing without fear of being accused of patent infringement.
To sum up, patents on human genes would no longer stand in the way of deepening our knowledge of the human genome and using these discoveries to improve how we diagnose and treat diseases. By invalidating these patents, the Supreme Court would ensure that the patent system fulfills its constitutional mandate “to promote the progress of science.”
Learn more about gene patents: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.