this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2026
79 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2734 readers
23 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.


Guidelines for submissions:

For World News, see the News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

On Friday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against the city of Jackson, Mississippi, which alleged the city knowingly let residents drink lead-contaminated water.

The lawsuit, first filed in 2022, says the contamination violated Jacksonians’ constitutional right to bodily integrity. Donald Trump-appointed judge Kurt Engelhardt disagreed. “The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing,” Engelhardt said. “Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.”

That may be true in Mississippi—but on the state level in at least nine US states, and in more than a dozen other countries, clean drinking water is in fact a protected right. In countries including Uruguay and South Africa, a right to clean water is enshrined in the constitution. New York’s state constitution, as of a 2021 amendment, states that “each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” So too in Massachusetts, where “the right to clean air and water” has been constitutionally protected since 1972.

But according to the Fifth Circuit ruling, the US constitution is too narrow for such a claim. The Jackson plaintiffs alleged that their city government deliberately withheld information about the water’s toxicity, and exacerbated the problem through a series of boil-water notices—a practice that can eliminate some bacterial contamination, but also concentrates lead in water. Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.”

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] loweffortname@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm really struggling with:

"The constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing."

I would have thought a founding document enumerating the rights of citizens did provide redress for grievances...

[–] GloriousGasHole@piefed.social 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It does. The 2nd amendment.

[–] loweffortname@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 21 hours ago

There's the amendments, yes. But I believe there are sections within the actual constitution that enumerate the court system (for example), which is famously a place where people can petition for redress of grievances.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.”

What The Actual Fuck is that fuckery?

[–] Major_Tsiom@fedia.io 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That judge worded that very badly. It just isn't a constitutional matter. This case seems to pertain to our rights under the constitution. I guess you would have to sue in a different court.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 day ago

Ah that makes more sense.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We need to stop talking about constitutional rights and start talking about natural or human rights. The constitution is a dead document so relying on it to solve every modern problem is foolish.

[–] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

It's pretty woke of this administration to rip up the constitution it turns out. Same with it being pretty woke to fuck up the oil supply so we focus on greener energy.

I hate to say it, despite their best efforts, they might just make the world a better place by helping the rest of us fight against hateful tyranny instead of be numbed by status quo tyranny.

[–] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 18 points 2 days ago

In countries including Uruguay and South Africa, a right to clean water is enshrined in the constitution. New York’s state constitution, as of a 2021 amendment, states that “each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” So too in Massachusetts, where “the right to clean air and water”

Damn right! It's literally a need.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

We should appeal with a nation wide vote at the state level.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 9 points 2 days ago

No constitutional right, sure ... but is there no statutory right? Is there no law against poisoning the water supply and lying about it?