Fifth Circuit Rules Due Process Does Not Guarantee Safe Drinking Water or Truthful Information

On September 4, 2026, the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-5 that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee citizens a right to safe drinking water, nor does it protect them from public officials who misrepresent its safety. The en banc decision affirmed the dismissal of a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by four residents of Jackson, Mississippi, who alleged that city officials knowingly allowed lead to leach into the municipal water supply and subsequently lied to the public about the danger.[2][3]

Writing for the 10-judge majority, Judge Kurt Engelhardt stated that the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause was not designed to serve as a remedy for local administrative failures. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the city's actions violated their constitutional right to bodily integrity, distinguishing the mismanagement of a public utility from direct state-sponsored harm such as forced medical treatment or physical assault. "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," Engelhardt wrote.[1][3]

The lawsuit, Sterling v. City of Jackson, was initially filed in 2022 by residents Priscilla Sterling, Raine Becker, Shawn Miller, and John Bennett. The plaintiffs pointed to Mississippi State Department of Health testing conducted between 2010 and 2013, which showed lead levels in the city's water increasing at an alarming rate. According to the complaint, rather than addressing the vulnerability, city officials actively switched a section of the water source from a safe groundwater system to a corrosive surface water system, exacerbating the leaching of lead from aging pipes.[3]

The en banc ruling reverses a prior decision from November 2025, in which a divided three-judge panel of the same court had revived the residents' claims. In that earlier decision, the panel had argued that the state knowingly introduced a toxin to residents' bodies and then told them it was safe, which arguably carried greater weight than previous bodily integrity cases. However, the full court vacated that panel decision, concluding that while the alleged deprivations of clean water and honest information were serious, they did not infringe upon a deeply rooted constitutional right.[1][2][3]

Judge Catharina Haynes filed a partial dissent to the en banc ruling, joined by four other judges, maintaining that the residents had plausibly alleged violations of their right to bodily integrity and should have been permitted to gather evidence in district court. The majority, however, emphasized that the plaintiffs are not without recourse. Engelhardt noted that residents could pursue state-level tort claims, elect new officials to better manage the water system, or petition their representatives for legislative solutions. "The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing," he concluded.[1][3]

The decision establishes a binding precedent across the 5th Circuit's jurisdiction of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, severely limiting the ability of citizens to use federal civil rights statutes, such as Section 1983, to hold municipalities accountable for utility failures. By formally rejecting the application of the state-created danger doctrine to municipal water services, the court ensures that future litigation over public utility contamination in the region will be confined to state courts and statutory environmental laws rather than constitutional claims.[2]

The decision establishes a binding precedent across the 5th Circuit's jurisdiction of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, severely limiting the ability of citizens to use federal civil rights statutes, such as Section 1983, to hold municipalities accountable for utility failures. By formally rejecting the application of the state-created danger doctrine to municipal water services, the court ensures that future litigation over public utility contamination in the region will be confined to state courts and statutory environmental laws rather than constitutional claims.[2]

The decision establishes a binding precedent across the 5th Circuit's jurisdiction of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, severely limiting the ability of citizens to use federal civil rights statutes, such as Section 1983, to hold municipalities accountable for utility failures. By formally rejecting the application of the state-created danger doctrine to municipal water services, the court ensures that future litigation over public utility contamination in the region will be confined to state courts and statutory environmental laws rather than constitutional claims.[2]