A divided US federal appeals court has ruled that the US Constitution does not explicitly guarantee Americans a right to clean drinking water, rejecting a lawsuit brought by residents of Jackson, Mississippi, over lead contamination in the city’s water supply.
The ruling by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has drawn criticism from environmental advocates and legal experts, who have raised concerns about the implications of the decision for residents exposed to unsafe drinking water.
The court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by four Jackson residents — Priscilla Sterling, Raine Becker, Shawn Miller and John Bennett. The plaintiffs argued that city officials violated their constitutional right to bodily integrity by knowingly or negligently allowing lead to contaminate the municipal water system.
Residents Cite Serious Health Consequences
The plaintiffs alleged that poor management of Jackson’s water system resulted in lead exposure and serious health consequences for residents.
Sterling said some of her children suffered from lead poisoning. Exposure to lead can have serious and potentially permanent effects, particularly in children, including damage to the developing brain and nervous system.
The case has attracted additional attention because of Jackson’s demographics and economic conditions. About 83% of the city’s population is African American, while its poverty rate is roughly twice the national rate, according to the information cited in the case.
The plaintiffs sought to pursue their claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that exposure to contaminated drinking water implicated their right to bodily integrity.
Judge Raises Comparison With Flint Crisis
The ruling was not unanimous. Judge Catharina Haynes, who was nominated to the federal bench by former President George W. Bush, partially dissented.
Haynes argued that the case bore similarities to the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, where residents were exposed to lead-contaminated water after problems with the city’s water system.
Trump Administration Slams UK’s Plan to Boost BBC Online, Calls It ‘Censorship Facilitation’
In her view, the Jackson residents should at least have been allowed to proceed with the discovery process, which could have enabled them to obtain additional evidence concerning the alleged contamination and the conduct of city officials.
Her partial dissent highlights the disagreement within the court over whether the residents should have been given a greater opportunity to develop their constitutional claims.
Wider Debate Over Clean Water Protections
The decision comes amid a broader national debate over environmental regulation and access to safe drinking water.
The case also coincides with efforts by the Trump administration to change federal environmental regulations, including measures that critics say could weaken certain protections under the Clean Water Act.
At the state level, however, some jurisdictions have taken a different approach. California, New York and Massachusetts are among the states that have incorporated protections relating to a right to clean water into their state constitutions.
The federal ruling does not mean that contaminated drinking water is generally lawful or that federal and state environmental protections no longer apply. Rather, the decision concerns whether the US Constitution itself provides the specific constitutional right asserted by the Jackson residents.
The ruling therefore adds to an ongoing legal and political debate over the responsibilities of governments to provide safe drinking water and the extent to which those responsibilities are protected by constitutional law.
