No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds • Hacker News Board

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#81

Post by ceejayoz » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 7:44 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #66

ceejayoz wrote: post #14

> In the majority decision, Judge Kurt Engelhardt wrote that while the deprivation of clean water was “grievous,” it did “not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.” “We are skeptical that the right to not be harmed by lead-contaminated water fits within the right to bodily integrity, and Plaintiffs point us to no historical tradition or Supreme Court precedent convincing us,” he wrote. The Ninth Amend…

I'm not sure why you think the Ninth Amendment is relevant here. It just establishes that there are rights not listed in the Constitution. It provides no help whatsoever in determine what those rights are. If you want to know more on how that is done you want to look into "Substantive Due Process". There are a couple approaches that courts might use. One is looking to see if the alleged right is deeply rooted in hist…

> It just establishes that there are rights not listed in the Constitution. It provides no help whatsoever in determine what those rights are.

The opinion is asserting a government intentionally allowing lead poisoning does "not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right". That's an assertion that no such right exists.

> One is looking to see if the alleged right is deeply rooted in history and tradition and implicit in the idea of ordered liberty.

Hilariously, the "deeply rooted in history and tradition" test is, itself, not rooted in history and tradition. It was established in 2022!

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#82

Post by JuniperMesos » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 7:44 PM UTC

mathisfun123 wrote: post #8

People don't read enough court decisions. Did you know you don't have a constitutional right to be protected by the police either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale... > the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for refusing to enforce a restraining order, even though the refusal led to the murders of a woman's three children by her…

If that court had ruled differently, people would absolutely be using that precedent to sue towns and police departments for not delivering illegal immigrants who came to the attention of the police department to ICE for deportation, if that illegal immigrant later killed someone.

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#83

Post by ceejayoz » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 7:45 PM UTC

AustinDev wrote: post #78

ceejayoz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That'd require them explaining why "the 14th Amendment predates germ theory" is a reasonable argument but not "the Second Amendment predates machine guns".

>"the Second Amendment predates machine guns" That statement is false. Repeating firearms like the Puckle gun predate the bill of rights by ~75 years. More importantly, the Founders were hardly unfamiliar with privately owned military firepower. The Constitution expressly authorized Congress to grant letters of marque, and the government commissioned privateers to attack enemy shipping using their cannon-armed privat…

> The Constitution expressly authorized Congress to grant letters of marque… the government commissioned privateers...

So Congress had a certain level of... control? Over guns?

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#84

Post by jack_h » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 7:45 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #24

_--__--__ wrote: post #19

This ruling seems obviously correct to me? The plaintiffs claimed this was a 14th amendment issue, but at the time the 14th was added cholera outbreaks were still somewhat common in the US and there was no remote notion of safe drinking water provided universally by municipal governments. Hopefully there is some other legal redress under a different law or EPA regulation, but the courts can't just give in to faulty r…

That'd require them explaining why "the 14th Amendment predates germ theory" is a reasonable argument but not "the Second Amendment predates machine guns".

The second amendment is a pretty well articulated negative right in the same manner as the first or the fourth in the classical liberal school of thought. These are natural rights that individuals have and the bill of rights merely states that these are outside of the government’s sphere. The technology being used whether it be voicing your opinion on the internet, your house being secure from searches with thermal cameras without a warrant, or using modern firearms doesn’t alter the right or the government’s relationship to it.

The fourteenth amendment, specifically the due process clause at issue here, says that if the government exercises its power to deprive you of life, liberty, or property it must provide due process. In this case the government was not exercising such a power. It does not say that the government must provide clean water, in which case our understanding of what “clean” means would mirror the technological indifference of the aforementioned rights. Due process clause is just a really bad vehicle for this type of grievance.

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#85

Post by newswasboring » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 7:46 PM UTC

flufluflufluffy wrote: post #45

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #3

> alleged that the city knowingly allowed residents to drink unsafe water. Surely knowingly letting people drink lead contaminated water breaks other laws rather than their constitutional rights?

If there was documented, provable harm done to the residents from the lead poisoning (not saying there isn’t, I just don’t know), they could surely win a civil case claiming negligence by the city and/or water treatment facilities/etc… There may also be laws or regulations in Jackson or Mississippi that were broken. Perhaps there aren’t, but there maybe should be. Which are all points brought up by Engelhardt: > The…

> If there was documented, provable harm done to the residents from the lead poisoning (not saying there isn’t, I just don’t know), they could surely win a civil case claiming negligence by the city and/or water treatment facilities/etc

I would never understand this system. So to get repatriation on damage done a citizen has to mount an entire legal initiative. Even if the guilt is already proved. It just feels like a system where departments of government will only sue to fill their own budget next year.

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#86

Post by iamEAP » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 7:46 PM UTC

bradley13 wrote: post #51

Correct. You may demand clean water from your local government, in return for taxes, but it isn't any sort of basic right. And certainly is not mentioned in the US Constitution. Much like food or medical care: fundamental rights can never depend on the work of other people. Otherwise you can demand that work, which imposes on their rights.

Access to clean water may not be enshrined in the US constitution, but it’s not accurate to say it’s not “any sort of basic right.”

It’s enshrined explicitly as such in a variety of UN documents and EU laws and instruments.

I wish more of my fellow Americans had a better idea of what fundamental rights the US has chosen not integrate into domestic law over the past 8 or so decades.

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#87

Post by rassimmoc » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 7:47 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #79

dguest wrote: post #34

It's interesting how a lot of newer countries just put the right to water directly in the constitution. South Africa says some stuff about the government having an obligation toward "progressive realization" of the goal [1], whereas Slovenia just straight says water is a right [2]. [1]: https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rig... [2]: https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/12...

Slovenia is also a rainy country with lots of rivers and snow in the winter. I am not sure how "right to water" would work in arid parts of the US. You cannot legally demand what physically is not there.

US has a lot of underground water, that is starting to run a bit low atm, but it's not like they are on desert world. The reason there is no political will to ensure access to water in US, is because its good way to make money, and any legal guarantees as to quality/safety of the water would unreasonably lower investors' return

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#88

Post by delecti » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 7:48 PM UTC

Frieren wrote: post #62

As a not American, why does freedom of speech include corporations giving money that are not citizens nor talking. But even that Congress has the power to spend "to provide for the common defence and general welfare" given by the constitution it still not a right to receive any of that. I have a feeling that there is a interpretation bias in favor of corporations over human life.

I think the first amendment quite reasonably protects people making donations to political causes. The "speech" protections aren't limited to literal vocalizations, but also applause, writing, displaying signs, etc. And it also protects assembly, and donating to a political organization is a reasonable part of joining or supporting a cause. It does not have to protect corporations making those same donations; congress could remove donations from the list of powers granted to a corporation, and there's an effort in some states to do just that (it'll be on the ballot this fall in Montana).

As for the second point, congress has that power, but not an obligation to do so. Congress could pass a law aimed at ensuring access to clean water, but not every law congress could pass has been passed. If congress passed such a law, a plain reading of that sentence would support the law being constitutional.

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#89

Post by blooalien » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 7:48 PM UTC

seizethecheese wrote: post #53

Avicebron wrote: post #13

> He [judge] also said there was no constitutional right to “truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.” We should have "spirit of the law" courts. This is absurd.

This is a double edged sword right? Allowing judges to interpret the “spirit of the law” more widely would create a different set of absurdities, I think.

> Allowing judges to interpret the “spirit of the law” more widely would create a different set of absurdities, I think.

Yeah, kinda genuinely terrifying to think about that timeline. That's how you get George Orwell's worst nightmares come true.

Re: No constitutional right to clean water, federal court finds

#90

Post by undeveloper » Mon, Sep 07, 2026, 7:50 PM UTC

seizethecheese wrote: post #53

Avicebron wrote: post #13

> He [judge] also said there was no constitutional right to “truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.” We should have "spirit of the law" courts. This is absurd.

This is a double edged sword right? Allowing judges to interpret the “spirit of the law” more widely would create a different set of absurdities, I think.

this happens all the time anyhow. "originalism" is ironically a pretty new strain of thought