Fifth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Jackson Lead-Water Lawsuit

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a 2022 lawsuit that alleged the city of Jackson, Mississippi, knowingly allowed residents to consume lead-contaminated water. The plaintiffs claimed the alleged deprivations violated a constitutional right to bodily integrity. The appellate panel concluded that the U.S. Constitution does not recognize a right to clean water or truthful information from officials during a public-health crisis.

Mother Jones

Jackson’s water infrastructure has long suffered from corrosion, leaks, and outdated pipes. In 2015, the Mississippi State Department of Health identified elevated lead levels, but officials reportedly delayed public notification for six months. EPA testing in 2020 documented “persistent and concerning violations” of water-safety policy, yet no substantive repairs were undertaken. The city’s population is more than 80 % Black, with a poverty rate exceeding twice the national average; a quarter of residents are children, a group especially vulnerable to lead’s neurotoxic effects. According to the 2022 lawsuit, several of plaintiff Priscilla Sterling’s children have since been diagnosed with lead poisoning, which can cause permanent brain damage.

Mother Jones

Judge Kurt Engelhardt, appointed by former President Donald Trump, explained that “the Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing,” emphasizing that the alleged deprivations, while grievous, do not constitute a deeply rooted constitutional right. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion echoed this reasoning, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims do not fall within the scope of federally protected rights.

Mother Jones

Environmental advocates argue the ruling reflects a broader federal shift to weaken water-protection policies.

Mother Jones

• “The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing,” — Kurt Engelhardt, donald trump-appointed judge

Mother Jones

• “The administration is clearly struggling to craft a rule that will hold up in court while satisfying their donors’ desire to effectively scrap these protections wherever possible,” — Jim Murphy

Mother Jones