Federal court rules Americans have no constitutional right to clean water — then tells lead-poisoned residents to sue their city

Plaintiffs Priscilla Sterling, Raine Becker, Shawn Miller and John Bennett first argued in 2022 that lead contamination of the city’s water violated local residents’ constitutional rights. But now multiple courts have disagreed with that sentiment.

“We are skeptical that the right to not be harmed by lead-contaminated water fits within the right to bodily integrity, and Plaintiffs point us to no historical tradition or Supreme Court precedent convincing us otherwise,” Judge Kurt Engelhardt wrote in a court opinion on the ruling.

That’s a tough pill to swallow for residents who pay to keep the town’s water system running. JXN Water customers’ bills increased by nearly 12% earlier this year, on average about $8.88 per month. An additional 10% increase may be needed next spring.

Jackson Mayor John Horhn said of the ruling: “We are pleased that the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal of these claims. The City remains committed to the health, safety, and well-being of every Jackson resident.”

The city will continue working with partners, including the state and federal government, as well as JXN Water to strengthen its water system, local outlet WJTV 12 News reported.

What “bodily integrity” does the Constitution protect?

The allegations against Jackson pointed to testing between 2010 and 2013 by the Mississippi State Department of Health that showed lead in the city’s water was increasing at an alarming rate.

In a 2024 appeal of the case, plaintiffs said that rather than taking the needed steps to stop lead from further contaminating water back then, the city ignored warnings, Mississippi Today reported.

However, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide a right to clean water under bodily integrity. According to Engelhardt, the right applies to instances such as sexual assault by a police officer or prisoners being forced to take medication.

“The City’s mismanagement of the public-water system resulting in Plaintiffs’ lead exposure is wholly different from forced surgery, involuntary medicating, and assault,” the court opinion says.