by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In the case of the United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court has struck down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as violative of the Equal Protection clause of the 5th Amendment. 

The case was originally brought by 83 year old New Yorker Edith Windsor, who upon the death of her female spouse, was compelled to pay over $300,000 in estate taxes because DOMA prohibited the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages.  Windsor won in the lower courts and the United States petitioned the US Supreme Court for a final decision on the validity of DOMA, which extended to over 1,000 laws relative to taxes, social security and immigration, to name a few. 

In striking down the validity of DOMA, the majority in the split court decision reasoned as follows:

" The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex  marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.  By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. "

In a related case, the US Supreme Court deemd California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional, thereby upholding California's legalization of same sex marriages.  These two decisions are both landmark in nature and huge victories for same sex marriage advocates.  Noteworthy, is that the court also acknowledged that in the future it may have to resolve challenges to state definitions of marriage, which issue the court stated was not currently before it to decide.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In our May 16, 2013 blog article entitled, Would You Like A Patent With Your Genetically Modified Baby?, we detailed how Myriad Genetics obtained patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 human genes.  In doing so, Myriad Genetics gained the exclusive rights relative to these vital genes, that indicate a significantly increased hereditary risk in developing ovarian or breast cancer.  The Association For Molecular Pathology legally contested the right of Myriad Genetics to hold such patents and exclusive rights, by litigating the issue all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.   

Today the US Supreme Court in the case of Association For Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, ruled that said patents were invalid.  Essentially the court found that by Myriad Genetics separating and identifying these genes, that in and of itself did not warrant the grant of a patent.  The court appeared to acknowledge the need for unrestrained research of the BRCA genes and that the granting of exclusive rights contradicted the public good.

This decision marks a significant blow to the Biotech industry and a victory for the people.  Perhaps the lower courts, including the US Court of Appeals that ruled in favor of Monsanto in the case of Organic Seed Growers and Trade v. Monsanto (See our June 10, 2013 article), will now utilize the Supreme Court's logic and sensibility in their own future cases.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The court system in this country appears to consistently support Monsanto, as shown once again in today's US Court of Appeals decision in Organic Seed Growers and Trade v. Monsanto.   

Monsanto owns multiple patents relative to their Round Up Ready glyphosate seeds, which organic farmers go through great lengths and expense to avoid use of and contamination from.  Notwithstanding, as a result of the prevalence of genetically modified seed use in this country, wind blown contamination of our organic farms is inevitable.  As is often the case, when an organic farm is contaminated with Monsanto's Round Up Ready genetically modified seeds, Monsanto actually sues the organic farmer for patent infringement and consistently wins! 

In the above referenced case, organic farmers were essentially seeking a declaratory judgment from the court to rule that if an organic farm is the victim of wind blown genetically modified seed contamination, that  such an occurence is not an infringement of Monsanto's patents.  This became necessary as the Monsanto threat of law suits had become financially disabling to many of our organic farmers.  Although the organic seed growers wanted Monsanto to provide a binding covenant no to sue, Monsanto refused stating it is not their policy to sue farmers with trace amounts of their patented genetically modified seeds.

The US Court of Appeals affirmed in favor of Monsanto stating  that Monsanto expressed no intent to sue farmers who had crops containing trace amounts (less than 1 %) of their genetically modified patented seeds.  That although this was not a covenant not to sue, it is still binding upon Monsanto as a matter of judicial estoppel.  

Unfortunately this decision does not preclude Monsanto from suing organic farmers who are found to have more than trace amounts (1 % or more) of the genetically modified patented seeds among their crops.  It also sidesteps and fails to address the proverbial elephant in the court room.  That is, when Monsanto's deviant seeds contaminate our organic farms, the organic farmer is the victim who has sustained real damages and not Monsanto.  To consistently hold in favor of Monsanto when they sue organic farmers who have been victimized by wind contamination, is injustice at the highest level.  

 Our courts need to stop maintaining the Monsanto status quo and trying to avoid decisions on the real Monsanto issues.  Perhaps as the list of countries that refuse to buy our genetically modified food products increase, so will the court's willingness to make the tough decisions before economic ruin ensues.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.