Brogan Jones — September 5, 2026
In the past year alone, there have been a multitude of landmark rulings that have reshaped environmental law, mainly by gutting regulations. In May of last year, the Supreme Court limited the scope of environmental review, which implicates the ability of governing bodies to enforce all kinds of climate policies. Just a week ago, a federal judge struck down New York’s Climate Superfund Act, which would have charged fossil fuel companies $75 billion over 25 years for greenhouse gas emissions. And now, a federal court has declared that clean drinking water is not a right guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
Legal Origins and Facts of the Case
The dispute began in Jackson, Mississippi in 2022, when residents alleged that they had been exposed to lead-contaminated water. They blamed city officials, who they claimed intentionally misled the public by telling them that the city’s water was safe to consume. This led a handful of Jackson residents to sue the city and several of its top officials.
Surprisingly, the majority of the case’s legal clash hinged on the Fourteenth Amendment, the section of the Constitution which is primarily known for guaranteeing birthright citizenship. While this particular amendment has gained attention in the media recently due to President Trump’s attempts to revoke birthright citizenship, Jackson residents also invoked it to justify their “right to clean drinking water.”
The plaintiffs alleged that the city of Jackson’s actions were unconstitutional under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Jackson residents’ central legal claim was that clean drinking water is a fundamental component of the rights to life and liberty established in this passage.
The Court’s Decision
Despite the case’s alleged constitutional backing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled on September 4th that the city of Jackson’s contaminated water did not violate any Fourteenth Amendment rights. Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt, writing for the 10-5 majority, stated that, “The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing.” He suggested that disgruntled citizens could seek redress by electing better representatives or petitioning the government for remedies.
Meanwhile, the Jackson residents who sued the city remain adamant that failure to guarantee safe drinking water constitutes a threat to bodily integrity, which prevents one from exercising their rights to life and liberty. The five dissenting judges agreed and criticized the Court’s majority for failing to recognize the Constitution’s protections against state-created danger.
Legal Implications
While states are still forced to comply with federal standards and laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the decision handed down by the appeals court still marks another major precedent set for both environmental and constitutional law.
While the Court’s decision does not strip people of clean water access, it does mark the latest in a series of rulings which have taken on a narrow view of the Constitution, refusing to apply broad rights like life, liberty, and property to specific issues that affect citizens’ quality of life. In terms of environmental law, this case may be used as a precedent in future proceedings as proof of the argument that environmental damage, despite violating federal laws and regulations, does not necessarily violate the Constitution itself.
Read More Here:
