Federal Appeals Court Rules Clean Drinking Water Is Not a Constitutional Right

A federal appeals court has ruled that clean drinking water is not a constitutional right, rejecting claims from Jackson, Mississippi, residents who alleged city officials exposed them to lead-contaminated water and misled the public about its safety.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 10-5 on Sept. 4 that the alleged contamination did not violate rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The en banc court affirmed the dismissal of federal civil rights claims against the City of Jackson and several current and former officials.

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

The case, Sterling v. City of Jackson, stems from the city’s long-running water crisis. Residents Priscilla Sterling, Raine Becker, Shawn Miller and John Bennett alleged that years of decisions and failures by city officials caused lead to leach into Jackson’s municipal water system.

They also claimed officials assured residents that the water was safe despite knowing it likely was not. Sterling alleged that several of her children were diagnosed with lead poisoning, while Miller and Bennett said members of their households suffered effects they attributed to lead or other contaminants.

The residents did not argue that the Constitution explicitly guarantees clean water. Instead, they said government-caused exposure violated their right to bodily integrity and that officials increased the danger while withholding or misstating information about the water supply.

Engelhardt wrote that constitutional protections for bodily integrity have generally involved direct government interference, including forced medical procedures, involuntary medication and physical assault. Mismanagement of a municipal water system that exposes residents to lead, the majority concluded, falls outside that established protection.

“It is undisputed that the Constitution does not guarantee clean water,” the court said.

The majority also found no constitutional right to truthful information from government officials during a public health crisis. Without a recognized constitutional violation, the Jackson residents could not pursue their claims under Section 1983.

The ruling also deepens a disagreement with the Sixth Circuit over whether government-caused exposure to contaminated drinking water can support a constitutional claim.

In litigation stemming from the Flint, Michigan, water crisis, the Sixth Circuit allowed residents to pursue claims that officials knowingly exposed them to contaminated water in violation of their right to bodily integrity. The Fifth Circuit expressly declined to follow that reasoning, concluding that extending the protection to a municipal water system would expand substantive due process beyond rights rooted in the nation’s history and legal tradition.

A three-judge Fifth Circuit panel had taken a different approach in November 2025, allowing part of the Jackson case to proceed after finding the residents had plausibly alleged a bodily-integrity violation. The full court later agreed to rehear the case and vacated that ruling.

Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes, joined by four other judges, dissented from the majority’s treatment of the residents’ claims.

Haynes emphasized that the lawsuit was dismissed before discovery, when courts generally evaluate whether properly pleaded allegations state a viable claim rather than whether plaintiffs can ultimately prove them. She said the Jackson residents’ allegations “mirror in various ways” those arising from the Flint water crisis and should have been allowed to proceed.

The dissent also criticized the majority for not addressing the residents’ state-created danger argument. That doctrine can allow constitutional claims when government officials create or increase a danger that later causes harm.

Haynes noted that 10 other federal appeals courts have recognized some form of the doctrine, while the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly declined either to formally adopt or definitively reject it.

The majority separately concluded that the individual Jackson officials would be protected by qualified immunity even if a constitutional violation had been established because no clearly established precedent put them on notice that their alleged conduct violated federal rights.

The decision does not remove federal or state drinking water protections. Jackson’s system has separately faced federal enforcement under the Safe Drinking Water Act and has operated under court-ordered third-party management as infrastructure repairs and compliance efforts continue.

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

The ruling is binding on federal courts in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas and does not bar similar claims nationwide. The Sixth Circuit’s different approach in the Flint litigation remains in place, leaving the Jackson residents the option of asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.