A US appellate court has decided that the federal constitution does not guarantee a right to clean water.
That legal opinion came in the form of a decision on Friday from the fifth circuit court of appeals to uphold a lower court’s dismissal of a 2022 lawsuit from several Jackson, Mississippi, residents claiming that tainted drinking water violated their constitutional rights.
Those residents of Mississippi’s capital city contended that their local drinking water was unsafe to drink because of high lead levels and other contaminants.
The New Orleans-based fifth circuit’s majority opinion held that the residents wanted “recognition of two new constitutional rights lacking any foundation in the history and tradition of our nation” – those being “the right to be free from exposure to contaminated water and the right to accurate information from public officials”.
In the majority’s view, residents should have gone about their legal fight for clean water another way, such as pursuing “tort claims” or by “electing representatives who will better manage the public-water system, and petitioning their representatives for other remedies”.
Tort claims allege “harms caused by others” while seeking “to impose liability on parties responsible for the harm, and to deter others from committing harmful acts”, according to Cornell University’s law school.
Friday’s decision also said that state and federal officials were working hard to improve the majority-Black city’s drinking water. The residents who filed suit alleged that public authorities had for years failed to mitigate lead levels and failed to inform them about an increase.
“Plaintiffs have not been left to go at it alone,” the court said. “The State of Mississippi and federal government have worked for years, and continue today, to improve the city of Jackson’s drinking water quality through regulations, investigations, and compliance plans.”
Meanwhile, the opinion also said: “It is undisputed that the Constitution does not guarantee clean water.”
The opinion also held that a state doesn’t have a constitutional duty “to provide substantive services for those within its border absent a special relationship”. And municipalities are not constitutionally obligated to provide sewerage, water treatment or waste management services “in a reasonably competent fashion”, the decision said.
The decision nonetheless said that the majority of the court recognized the allegations of “serious government misfeasance” and was “sympathetic to the injuries [the plaintiffs] may suffer as a result”. But, the court’s ruling said “our sympathies cannot be the basis” for converting tort claims into constitutional issues.
“These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right,” the fifth circuit’s opinion said.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached for comment. John Horhn, the Jackson mayor, said in a statement: “We are pleased that the fifth circuit upheld the dismissal of these claims.
“The City remains committed to the health, safety, and well-being of every Jackson resident.”
Jackson residents say that they have long reeled from water crises.
The NAACP filed a complaint in September 2022 alleging that Mississippi state authorities violated civil rights law by repeatedly sending federal money earmarked for drinking water safety to white communities rather than Jackson. Such diversion of funds constituted racial discrimination, the complaint said.
“The result is persistently unsafe and unreliable drinking water and massive gaps in the access to safe drinking water that are intolerable in any modern society,” Jackson residents said in a complaint to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Nearly all of the residents of Jackson have watched brackish, dirty, impure, and undrinkable water trickle from their taps. At times, some have had no water at all.”
The NAACP’s Jackson branch sued over the diversion of these funds in August 2025. The suit against several Mississippi state officials alleged that they “intentionally deprived [Jackson] residents … of access to federal relief funds … which were promised to Jackson in order to address the water infrastructure crisis”.
The lawsuit asked for a judge to declare that this diversion of money “is both facially discriminatory and the result of discriminatory purpose” – and to bar officials from permanently siphoning that money away from Jackson.