Federal Appeals Court Rules Constitution Does Not Guarantee a Right to Clean Drinking Water

BY MIRABEL ODETA

A federal appeals court has ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee Americans a right to clean drinking water, rejecting a lawsuit brought by residents who alleged that officials in Jackson, Mississippi, knowingly allowed people to be exposed to lead-contaminated water.

The ruling came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a 10-5 decision involving residents who challenged the safety of Jackson’s troubled water system. The plaintiffs argued that prolonged exposure to unsafe drinking water violated constitutional protections, particularly the rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

The court disagreed, concluding that the alleged contamination did not establish a violation of a constitutional right protected by the amendment.

Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt, writing for the majority, said the Constitution does not provide a remedy for every failure or wrongdoing by government officials. He said the residents had not demonstrated that protection from lead-contaminated drinking water falls within the constitutional right to bodily integrity.

The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by Priscilla Sterling, Raine Becker, Shawn Miller and John Bennett. The residents alleged that Jackson officials were aware of problems with the city’s water system and failed to adequately protect people from potentially dangerous contamination.

The lawsuit pointed to water testing conducted by Mississippi health officials between 2010 and 2013 that showed elevated levels of lead. The residents argued that the findings should have prompted stronger action to address the condition of the water system and protect the public.

Jackson’s water system has faced years of financial, infrastructure and management problems, with residents repeatedly raising concerns about water quality and reliability. The city’s aging infrastructure has required extensive repairs and investment, while officials have worked to restore confidence in the system.

The constitutional question before the appeals court was narrower than whether contaminated water poses a health risk. The judges were asked to determine whether the Constitution itself provides residents with a legal right that can be enforced in federal court when government action or inaction allegedly exposes them to unsafe drinking water.

The majority concluded that the plaintiffs had not established such a right under existing constitutional law. Engelhardt wrote that the residents had not identified a sufficiently established historical tradition or Supreme Court precedent supporting their argument that protection from lead-contaminated water is part of the 14th Amendment’s protection of bodily integrity.

The decision highlights the limits of constitutional claims involving public services. Although government agencies may have responsibilities under federal and state laws concerning drinking-water safety, the court’s ruling indicates that those responsibilities do not automatically create a constitutional right enforceable under the 14th Amendment.

The case also underscores the distinction between a serious public-health problem and a constitutional violation. Residents may still have legal avenues to challenge unsafe water under environmental, public-health or other statutes, but the appeals court found that the particular constitutional claim raised in the lawsuit did not meet the required legal standard.

The ruling comes as communities across the United States continue to address aging water infrastructure and contamination concerns, including exposure to lead and other hazardous substances. The decision could have broader implications for future lawsuits in which residents seek to use constitutional protections to challenge failures involving essential public services.

For Jackson residents, however, the court’s decision does not eliminate the ongoing need to address water-system problems or ensure that drinking water meets applicable safety requirements. It instead determines that the federal Constitution, as interpreted by the appeals court, does not independently guarantee a general right to clean drinking water.