A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that residents of Jackson, Mississippi, cannot pursue constitutional claims against the city and its officials over alleged exposure to lead-contaminated drinking water and misleading statements about its safety.
In a September 4 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims brought under Section 1983, a federal civil rights law that allows people to sue government officials for violations of federally protected constitutional rights.
The plaintiffs — Jackson residents Priscilla Sterling, Raine Becker, Shawn Miller and John Bennett — alleged that a series of actions and failures by the city caused lead to leach into the municipal drinking water supply. They also alleged city officials knew about the contamination but incorrectly assured residents the water was safe to drink, inducing them to consume it.
From 2014 to 2016, Jackson’s troubled water system experienced lead, E. coli and other bacterial contamination, involving numerous boil-water notices and system failures that left residents without water for weeks, according to the ruling.
Subscribe to our Newsletter!
The latest environmental engineering news direct to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time.
The plaintiffs argued that the city’s conduct violated their substantive due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, disagreed, finding the Constitution does not establish a right to be free from exposure to contaminated municipal water or a right to accurate information from public officials about water contamination.
“It is undisputed that the Constitution does not guarantee clean water,” Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt wrote for the majority.
The court found that even when municipalities provide services such as drinking water, wastewater treatment or waste management, the Constitution does not require those services to be provided competently.
The plaintiffs had also argued that ingesting lead-contaminated water infringed their constitutional right to bodily integrity. The court rejected that argument, distinguishing the alleged exposure from established bodily-integrity cases involving direct government intrusions such as forced medical procedures, involuntary medication and assault.
The ruling departs from the approach taken by the Sixth Circuit in litigation stemming from the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. In a 2019 decision, that court found that Flint residents had plausibly alleged that government officials violated their right to bodily integrity by exposing them to contaminated water. The Fifth Circuit said it was neither bound nor persuaded by that ruling.
The Fifth Circuit also rejected the Jackson residents’ argument that city officials violated their constitutional rights by allegedly providing false information about lead levels.
While the court said public officials are expected to be truthful, particularly when public safety is involved, it found no historical basis for recognizing a constitutional right to accurate information from government officials.
The court majority stressed that its decision does not mean residents have no potential remedies. It pointed to state-law tort claims, legislative action and regulatory enforcement as avenues for addressing alleged harms from the water system. The court also noted that state and federal agencies have investigated Jackson’s water system and ordered measures to address lead contamination.
The federal government has since assumed management of the public water system as part of efforts to bring it into compliance with federal standards, the ruling states.
Judges split over constitutional protections
In a partial dissent joined by four other judges, Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes argued that Jackson residents had plausibly alleged a violation of their right to bodily integrity. She cited claims that the city switched from high-pH well water to low-pH surface water, causing lead levels to rise; made misleading statements about drinking water safety; and withheld a 2020 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emergency order detailing violations in the water system.
“At a minimum, Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery,” states Haynes, arguing that the case should have been returned to the district court for further proceedings.
