Reported / Citable
Background
Jackson residents alleged that the city and its officials caused or worsened lead contamination in the municipal water system through their acts and omissions. They further alleged that officials knew the water was likely unsafe but nevertheless told residents it was safe, inducing them to drink contaminated water that could cause serious and lasting health problems.
The residents brought putative class claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting violations of substantive due process, along with state-law tort claims. The district court dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. A Fifth Circuit panel initially affirmed in part and reversed in part, but the court vacated that decision and reheard the appeal en banc.
The Court’s Holding
The en banc Fifth Circuit affirmed. It held that the residents had not alleged the violation of a cognizable substantive-due-process right. Neither a right to avoid exposure to municipally supplied water contaminated through officials’ conduct nor a right to truthful information from public officials about water contamination was deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. The alleged exposure also did not fall within the established constitutional right to bodily integrity.
Because there was no underlying constitutional violation, the § 1983 claims against the officials and the city failed. The court added that the individual officials would in any event be entitled to qualified immunity because no controlling authority or robust consensus clearly established the asserted rights when the conduct occurred. It also affirmed dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice. Five judges concurred in part and dissented in part, concluding that the residents plausibly pleaded bodily-integrity and state-created-danger claims against the city, while agreeing that the individual officials were entitled to qualified immunity.
Key Takeaways
- The Constitution does not guarantee clean water or require a municipality to provide water service competently.
- Government-caused exposure to contaminated water, even when accompanied by allegedly misleading assurances, does not establish a substantive-due-process violation in the Fifth Circuit under the theories accepted by the en banc majority.
- Without an underlying constitutional violation, municipal liability under § 1983 cannot attach; the residents may still pursue state-law or legislative remedies.
Why It Matters
The decision sharply limits the use of substantive due process to pursue constitutional damages claims arising from public-water contamination in the Fifth Circuit. It expressly declined to follow Sixth Circuit decisions recognizing plausible bodily-integrity claims in the Flint and Benton Harbor water cases.
The ruling leaves tort law, environmental regulation, political action, and legislative remedies as the principal avenues for addressing the alleged misconduct. The dissent’s treatment of the state-created-danger doctrine also highlights an unresolved divide between the Fifth Circuit and most other federal circuits.