> California officials argue that the court should follow the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in Maryland v. King that citizens’ privacy rights are outweighed by the government’s need to use DNA to identify arrestees, just as it uses fingerprints.
The article makes it sounds like the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. Wouldn't that make this California case moot?
In Maryland v. King the crucial difference is that according to the Maryland law in question the DNA sample has to be destroyed if there is no conviction and it can't be processed before the arrestee has been charged. (according to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._King)
> The article makes it sounds like the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. Wouldn't that make this California case moot?
The Supreme Court issued a (relatively) narrow ruling; the EFF is arguing that this principle can and should be applied to a broader ruling.
This is a pretty standard pattern in judicial proceedings. For a number of reasons, judges are often hesitant to rule too broadly, so advocates push for successively broader rulings until they achieve their goal.
(It also sometimes happens in reverse, with advocates pushing for narrower rulings, but that's a different matter).
The article makes it sounds like the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. Wouldn't that make this California case moot?