A federal appeals court rejected constitutional claims brought by Jackson, Mississippi, residents who alleged city officials exposed them to lead in their drinking water and misled them about its safety.
In a Sept. 4 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled 10-5 that the allegations did not establish a violation of rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
The decision sets precedent for federal courts in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas when considering similar claims involving government-provided drinking water. It leaves drinking-water regulations in place and allows the residents to pursue claims under state law.
The case, Sterling v. City of Jackson, was brought by Priscilla Sterling, Raine Becker, Shawn Miller and John Bennett. They sued the city and several officials under Section 1983, a federal civil rights law, alleging violations of their rights to bodily integrity and protection from dangers created by government.
The residents alleged the city's actions and failures to act caused lead to leach into the water supply. Officials then told residents the water was safe to drink despite knowing it likely was not, according to the complaint as described in the ruling.
The plaintiffs said those assurances led them to consume the water and suffer harm. The dissent noted allegations that several of Sterling's children had been diagnosed with lead poisoning.
Because the appeal concerned dismissal at the pleading stage, the judges were required to accept the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Those allegations were not findings reached after a trial.
Judge Kurt Engelhardt, writing for the majority, said the Constitution did not guarantee the rights asserted in this case. The court found no basis in the nation's history and tradition for recognizing a due process right to protection from the alleged contamination or to truthful information from officials about it.
"The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing," Engelhardt wrote.
The majority rejected the argument that the alleged exposure violated the right to bodily integrity, distinguishing water-system mismanagement from government actions such as forced medical treatment.
Judge Catharina Haynes, joined by four judges, disagreed with dismissing the constitutional claims against the city. She wrote that the residents had plausibly alleged violations of their right to bodily integrity and should have been allowed to gather evidence.
Haynes also criticized the majority for failing to address the residents' argument that the government had created or increased the danger they faced. She would have recognized that theory as a basis for a constitutional claim.
Both opinions agreed the officials were entitled to qualified immunity because existing precedent had not clearly established that the conduct alleged in the case violated constitutional rights. That protection shields the officials from damages on these claims.
The Sept. 4 ruling followed reconsideration by the full court. A three-judge panel had revived part of the case in 2025, but that opinion was set aside when the court agreed to rehear the appeal.
The court also upheld dismissal of the residents' state-law claims without prejudice, allowing them to pursue those claims in state court. That dismissal did not decide whether the defendants were liable under state law.
The majority pointed to state and federal enforcement efforts, including investigations and orders aimed at reducing lead levels in Jackson's water, as avenues for addressing the system's problems. It also said residents could pursue tort claims, seek legislation or elect officials who would manage the system and provide information to the public.
