DNA and the Constitution
By Editorial,
The New York Times
| 02. 24. 2013
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear argument about whether it is constitutional for a state to collect DNA from people charged with violent crimes but not yet convicted. Last April, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that a state law authorizing such collection violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Maryland law enforcement officials were allowed to continue collecting DNA samples, however, through an order last July by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. He said there was a “fair prospect” that the Supreme Court would reverse the Maryland decision, which conflicts with rulings of the Virginia Supreme Court and of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third and the Ninth Circuits on similar statutes in other states. But the justices should uphold the Maryland court’s ruling, thus calling into question those other rulings. The Maryland law clearly contravenes the Fourth Amendment.
The case involves the collection of DNA from Alonzo Jay King Jr. after his arrest on assault charges in 2009. His DNA profile matched evidence from a rape in 2003, and...
Related Articles
By Carl Zimmer, The New York Times | 06.04.2026
Scientists at Columbia University have edited the DNA of early human embryos with unprecedented accuracy, an achievement that could open the way to babies engineered with particular characteristics.
The prospect has fueled controversy for years. On the one hand, the...
By Alexandre Piquard, Le Monde [cites CGS' Katie Hasson] | 05.22.2026
"If proven to be safe, we believe preventive gene editing could be one of the most important health technologies of the century." This is how Lucas Harrington explained the goal of his company Preventive: to create genetically modified babies. Trying...
By Daniel Shanahan, Los Angeles Review of Books | 05.31.2026
This is the 15th installment in the Legacies of Eugenics series, which features essays by leading thinkers devoted to exploring the history of eugenics and the ways it shapes our present. You can read the first part here. The series...
By Sofia Resnick, Stateline | 05.20.2026
An anti-abortion group last month sued seven Utah fertility clinics, claiming their disposal of embryos as part of the in vitro fertilization process violates the state’s wrongful death law.
The ministry Voice for the Voiceless believes it has a strong...