On September 4, 2026, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the federal constitutional claims in Sterling v. City of Jackson, rejecting the residents’ arguments about protection from contaminated water and truthful official information. The decision addresses those constitutional theories; it did not invalidate the Clean Water Act or other federal and state drinking-water protections.
What the Fifth Circuit decided
The residents argued that the alleged exposure to lead-contaminated municipal water violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity. The majority held that the Constitution does not recognize the asserted protection as a deeply rooted substantive-due-process right. Substantive due process is the constitutional doctrine used to protect certain fundamental liberties from government interference.
The majority also rejected the claim that the Constitution guarantees a right to truthful information from public officials during a public-health crisis under the theory presented in the case. The ruling affirmed dismissal of the federal constitutional claims in Sterling v. City of Jackson, No. 24-60370.
What the decision leaves in place
The judgment concerns constitutional claims, not the validity of drinking-water laws. The Clean Water Act and other federal and state drinking-water protections remain in force. The Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction covers Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, so its ruling binds federal courts in those states.
Potential avenues outside the federal constitutional claims include state tort claims, legislation and regulatory enforcement. These are distinct legal routes; the appellate judgment did not decide their merits.
The allegations behind the Jackson case
Jackson residents filed the lawsuit in 2022. They alleged that city officials knowingly exposed them to lead-contaminated water and misrepresented the water’s safety. Those allegations formed the basis of the case; the appeal concerned whether the residents’ constitutional claims could proceed.
Why Flint matters—and what the dissent argued
The Fifth Circuit’s decision is reported to differ from the Sixth Circuit’s treatment of claims arising from the Flint, Michigan, water crisis. The Sixth Circuit allowed residents’ claims based on bodily integrity to proceed. The contrast could create a circuit split, in which federal appeals courts take different approaches to a similar constitutional question.
Judge Catharina Haynes dissented in part, arguing that the residents’ allegations should have been allowed to proceed to discovery, the stage at which parties develop evidence for a case.
