Doe v. Obama
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1373
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs challenge Executive Order 13505 and NIH Guidelines funding embryonic stem cell research; district court dismissed for lack of standing.
- Mary Scott Doe represents a class of frozen embryos; other plaintiffs include NOEL and families with frozen embryos.
- NIH Guidelines authorize funding only for embryos donated for research with informed, voluntary consent and prohibit payments.
- Guidelines require procedures to keep donor decisions independent from researchers and a separation between embryo creation and donation.
- The court analyzes standing under injury-in-fact, traceability, and redressability; standard is de novo review of dismissal.
- Court affirms dismissal, finding no concrete, particularized injury or redressable injury tied to the challenged policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do frozen embryos have standing to challenge the policy? | Doe argues embryos are injured by policy. | Obama/secretaries argue no standing without named injury. | No standing; no concrete, particularized injury identified. |
| Is there a sufficiently particularized injury to the named plaintiff embryo? | Embryos threatened by policy constitute injury to Doe. | Injury not shown for individual embryo; class-wide harm insufficient. | Not established; injury-in-fact not specific to named plaintiff. |
| Is the injury fairly traceable to EO 13505/NIH Guidelines given donor autonomy? | Policy creates pressure on donors to donate for research. | Donor decisions are independently chosen; policy is not the sole cause. | Not fairly traceable; third-party donor decisions break the chain. |
| Do adopting parents have standing to challenge the policy? | Parents may be injured if fewer embryos are available for adoption. | No concrete imminent injury; potential future effects are speculative. | No standing; injury not imminent or properly alleged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury; injury must be actual or imminent)
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (standing requires fairly traceable injury to challenged action and redressability)
- Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976) (injury must be fairly traceable to government action; private decisions break traceability)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing requires actual injury traceable to challenged action; broad policies insufficient)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) (injury-in-fact and redressability requirements for standing)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 610 F.3d 69 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (competitor standing discussed; separate context from embryo claims)