The case of Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (2013) represented a victory for strict constructionism. Although many of the contemporary cases like US Department of Health v. Florida et al (2012), United States v. Windsor (2013), Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013), and Fisher v. the University of Texas (2013) favored the loose constructionist perspective, this case allowed the Supreme Court to use only what was written in the Constitution. However, when this debate was resolved by the Supreme Court, it also marked a large change in the biotechnology industry.
When Myriad Genetics argued that the genes they had isolated were patentable, the Supreme Court disagreed and said that naturally occurring objects were not available for a patent. However, they also stated that genes that were refined by synthetic processes were patentable, as they were not naturally occurring. The Supreme Court was easily able to mold the case into the Constitution, as it was obvious which genes were naturally occurring and which were not. Therefore, there was little grey area and little reason for interpretation. Because of this, the ruling in this case was a strict constructionist ruling. However, this one case stands remarkably alone among the other cases of this decade as the sole propagate of strict constructionism. Also, the case is not a good representation of the leanings of the Supreme Court because it lacked any necessity of interpretation. Despite this Supreme Court ruling, most of the Court’s recent significant decisions have abided by the principles of loose constructionism.
The decision also represented an important moment for biotechnology. Because naturally occurring, un-tampered, genes were now not patentable, many more companies could perform tests on genes without fear of being sued. On the flip side, it is argued that the ruling is ambiguous and creates uncertainty among companies in their rights. They say that it would be better to remove all ambiguity and allow the patenting of all genes. Regardless of one's side on the politics of the debate, it is clear that Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (2013) is a massive landmark in biotechnology.
http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2013/04/article_0007.html
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-398
Very interesting read! I found it interesting how this case serves as an example of the modern supreme court favoring strict constructionism. As you say in the first paragraph, the court only used what was strictly allowed by the constitution. I wonder what made this case different from the examples you mention in the opening paragraph in which the court favored loose construction.
ReplyDelete