Appeals court rules clean drinking water is not a constitutional right

WASHINGTON (TNND) — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that clean drinking water is not a constitutional right after Mississippi residents sued over their city’s contaminated water system.

In a 10-5 ruling last Friday, the court found that the alleged contamination in Jackson, Miss., did not violate rights protected by the 14th Amendment, The Hill reported.

“The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing,” Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt wrote in the ruling.

“We are skeptical that the right to not be harmed by lead-contaminated water fits within the right to bodily integrity, and Plaintiffs point us to no historical tradition or Supreme Court precedent convincing us,” she added.

Jackson residents Priscilla Sterling, Raine Becker, Shawn Miller and John Bennett filed the lawsuit in 2022 over the city’s allegedly lead-contaminated water system. They argued that the city knowingly allowed residents to drink unsafe water.

The complaint claimed that the state’s health department’s testing between 2010 and 2013 revealed increased levels of lead in the water.

The judge also noted in the ruling that Jackson’s mismanagement, which residents blame for their lead exposure, is not covered by the U.S. Constitution.

“It is undisputed that the Constitution does not guarantee clean water,” the judges found.

The court also ruled that there is no constitutional right to truthful information from government officials during a public health crisis.

The ruling contradicts the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals over whether government-caused exposure to contaminated drinking water can be a constitutional claim, according to Law Commentary.

Following the Flint, Michigan, water crisis, the Sixth Circuit allowed residents to pursue claims that officials knowingly exposed them to contaminated water, violating their right to bodily integrity. The Fifth Circuit expressly declined to follow that court’s reasoning, finding instead that extending the protection to a municipal water system would expand substantive due process beyond rights rooted in U.S. history and legal tradition.

In the Fifth Circuit’s case, Judge Catharina Haynes, joined by four other judges, dissented from the majority opinion.

Haynes noted that the lawsuit was dismissed before the discovery process, when courts generally evaluate whether properly pleaded allegations state a viable claim. She said the Jackson residents’ allegations “mirror in various ways” the claims from the Flint water crisis and should have been allowed to proceed.

The dissent noted that 10 other federal appeals courts have recognized some form of constitutional claims when government officials create or increase a danger that later causes harm.

Jackson’s water system has operated under court-ordered third-party management as infrastructure repairs and compliance efforts continue due to federal enforcement under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Jackson Mayor John Horhn said the city was pleased that the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal and remained committed to residents’ health and safety.