No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds
A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that residents of Jackson, Mississippi do not have a constitutional right to clean drinking water or to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis, rejecting claims based on the Fourteenth Amendment and bodily integrity. Commenters clash over whether the Constitution should be read as guaranteeing such “positive rights,” with some stressing the document’s focus on limiting government power and others invoking the Preamble, Ninth Amendment, and incorporation doctrine to argue for broader protections. Many see the decision as emblematic of deeper problems in U.S. governance and legal interpretation, contrasting it with international human rights norms and noting that affected residents are left to pursue tort claims or political remedies instead.
Scope of the Ruling
- Many note the court did not say “no right to clean water” in general, but that the specific 14th Amendment theories (bodily integrity, due process, truthful information) failed.
- Majority emphasized there is no historically “deeply rooted” constitutional right implicated by lead-contaminated municipal water or by officials’ false assurances.
- Dissenting views in the thread argue that intentional poisoning plainly implicates “life” and “liberty” under the 14th Amendment and potentially unenumerated rights under the 9th.
Alternative Legal Remedies
- Several comments stress that plaintiffs still have paths: state tort claims (negligence, malfeasance, reckless endangerment), regulatory enforcement, and electoral change.
- Others counter that tort suits are slow, hampered by qualified immunity, and end up paid by taxpayers rather than responsible officials, reducing deterrence.
Government Deception and “Right to Truth”
- Court’s statement that there is no constitutional right to truthful information in a public health crisis is heavily criticized.
- Some argue there should be explicit laws or even a constitutional amendment requiring officials not to materially mislead the public.
- Others reply that existing malfeasance and misconduct statutes already cover harmful deception, even if not framed as constitutional rights.
Negative vs Positive Rights
- Thread repeatedly contrasts the US focus on negative rights (limits on government) with absent positive rights (e.g., to water, healthcare).
- Some argue the Constitution was intentionally drafted this way; others say the 9th Amendment and “general welfare” language should support recognizing unenumerated, substantive protections.
- Debate over whether due process can ever require safe services once government chooses to provide them.
Federalism and Incorporation
- Discussion over whether the 14th binds municipalities directly or only states; countered by citations that local entities are “state actors” for equal protection and §1983 purposes.
- Agreement that the Constitution constrains state and local governments even though it did not create them.
Comparisons, Politics, and Legitimacy
- Comparisons to newer constitutions (e.g., South Africa, Slovenia) that explicitly protect a right to water.
- Concerns that US amendment practice has stalled, pushing everything into judicial interpretation.
- Some see ideological, partisan judging and selective use of “history and tradition” tests undermining democratic legitimacy and public trust.