\n<\/p>\n
A volunteer grabs a gallon of water at a water and food distribution drive held by College Hill Baptist Church and the World Central kitchen on March 7, 2021 in Jackson, Mississippi. <\/span>Michael M. Santiago\/Getty<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n On Friday, the<\/span> 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n The lawsuit,<\/a> first filed in 2022<\/a>, says the contamination violated Jacksonians\u2019 constitutional right to bodily integrity. Donald Trump-appointed judge Kurt Engelhardt disagreed<\/a>. \u201cThe Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing,\u201d Engelhardt said.<\/a> \u201cDefendants\u2019 actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n That may be true in Mississippi\u2014but 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<\/a> and South Africa<\/a>, a right to clean water is enshrined in the constitution. New York\u2019s state constitution, as of a 2021 amendment<\/a>, states that \u201ceach person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.\u201d So too in Massachusetts, where \u201cthe right to clean air and water\u201d has been constitutionally protected since 1972<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s toxicity, and exacerbated the problem through a series of boil-water notices\u2014a practice that can eliminate some bacterial contamination, but also concentrates lead in water. Engelhardt stated there is no \u201cconstitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Jackson is more than 80 percent Black and has a poverty rate that is more than double the national average. The city\u2019s water system has long been in dire need of upgrades<\/a>. In 2015, officials from the Mississippi State Department of Health found elevated lead levels in the water supply. Instead of immediately informing citizens, they remained silent about the issue for six months<\/a>, according to reporting from Grist<\/em>, while residents continued drinking toxic water.\u00a0<\/p>\n EPA officials ran a series of tests in 2020 and found \u201cpersistent and concerning violations\u201d of water safety policy, including leaks, corrosion, and high lead levels throughout the system.\u00a0<\/p>\n But no city, state, or federal agencies fixed the problem. Meanwhile, people including Jackson plaintiff Priscilla Sterling continued drinking water with unsafe levels of lead. According to the 2022 lawsuit, several of Sterling\u2019s children have since been diagnosed with lead poisoning, which can cause permanent brain damage. A quarter of Jackson\u2019s residents are children, who are particularly vulnerable to the life-long effects<\/a> of lead poisoning<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Fifth Circuit ruling comes as the Trump administration moves to weaken clean-water-related protections. Also on Friday, Trump\u2019s EPA released a supplemental rule<\/a> to further dilute the Clean Water Act, quickly condemned by environmental watchdogs.<\/p>\n \u201cThe administration is clearly struggling to craft a rule that will hold up in court while satisfying their donors\u2019 desire to effectively scrap these protections wherever possible,\u201d said Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation.<\/a> \u201cOne thing is clear: If we don\u2019t protect our streams and wetlands, the cost of dirtier drinking water and increased flooding will flow downstream to households at a time when most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n