Fifth Circuit Rules Constitution Does Not Guarantee a Right to Clean Drinking Water

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not establish a federal right to clean drinking water or a right to accurate information from government officials about contaminated water.

The September 4 ruling came in Sterling v. City of Jackson, a lawsuit brought by Jackson, Mississippi, residents who alleged that city officials knowingly allowed lead contamination in the municipal water system and failed to adequately inform residents about the risks. The court’s full bench affirmed the dismissal of the residents’ federal constitutional claims.

Writing for the majority, Judge Kurt Engelhardt said the residents were asking the court to recognize constitutional rights that do not have sufficient grounding in the nation’s history and legal tradition. The majority concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not provide a constitutional remedy for the alleged injuries.

The residents argued that the contaminated water violated their right to bodily integrity and that officials’ handling of the crisis created a constitutional violation. The court rejected that argument, distinguishing the case from situations in which courts have recognized bodily-integrity protections, such as sexual assault by police officers or forced medication of prisoners.

The lawsuit alleged serious consequences from exposure to lead-contaminated water. The plaintiffs claimed officials knew about problems with Jackson’s water system and failed to adequately address or communicate the risks. The court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of reviewing the dismissal, but determined those allegations did not establish a constitutionally protected right under federal law.

The ruling also addressed the residents’ claim that officials failed to provide accurate information. The majority concluded that the Constitution does not establish a general right to truthful information from public officials during a public health crisis.

Judge Catharina Haynes dissented, arguing that the residents had alleged facts serious enough to warrant allowing the case to proceed to discovery. She also argued that the Fifth Circuit should recognize a “state-created danger” theory, which has been adopted by several other federal appeals courts.

The Fifth Circuit said residents could pursue other legal remedies, including state-law claims, while also seeking solutions through elected officials and government agencies.

The ruling leaves the residents’ federal constitutional claims dismissed and does not establish a constitutional right to clean drinking water under the federal Constitution.