3 ms·

Misleadingly provocative headline, right? The actual ruling from the article is that the US Constitution does not by itself grant US citizens that right. As the

Misleadingly provocative headline, right? The actual ruling from the article is that the US Constitution does not by itself grant US citizens that right. As the article itself points out, there’s nothing stopping other agreements from granting the right, and indeed several states do so explicitly.

IsTom 27d ago
On the other hand it means that states can just not do that and leave their citizens without clean drinking water.
- Smaug123 27d ago
  Does it? I think that conclusion requires observing additionally that all federal law also fails to grant a right to safe drinking water, doesn’t it?
  - gavinsyancey 27d ago
    Many municipal water systems are wholely in one state. Does the Constitution grant Congress the right to control municipal water quality? Also it's kind of a moot point if federal law has not granted that right and does not seem likely to.
    - rascul 27d ago
      Isn't that what the safe drinking water act is for?
- u1hcw9nx 27d ago
  Page 2 second paragraph."Rather, the remedy for Plaintiffs’ injuries lies in pursuing .." https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60370-CV1.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60370-CV1.pd...
  - IsTom 27d ago
    Yes > Rather, the remedy for Plaintiffs’ injuries lies in pursuing tort claims, electing representatives who will better manage the public-water system, and petitioning their representatives for other remedies. which is easier said than done. From outside of US this seems extremely ass backwards.
cumshitpiss 27d ago
[dead]
ianjbutler 27d ago
> Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.” Nah, headline is optimistic actually: no right to clean water, to water tests, or to the truth about the tests if they occur. No right to healthcare, schools, or even deliverable mail either. But surely some of these are just the kind of thing you might expect as an absolute minimum everywhere if you have to pay taxes.
- Smaug123 27d ago
  Sorry, I think your pull quote is actually contradicting your gloss. Again, the pull quote states that it doesn’t infringe any constitutional right, not that it doesn’t infringe any rights granted for any other reason?
  - ianjbutler 27d ago
    Cool cool, I can see you've got a sharp eye for detail my friend but let's really get down to it. What exactly is it that you really want to defend here? Why do you want to defend it? And more to the point, do you like drinking clean water? Do you think people should have it or not?
    - Amezarak 27d ago
      Speaking for GP, I want to have both a reasonable legal system and safe, clean drinking water. We can have both, and the former precludes the idea that plaintiffs and judges can simply invent new fundamental rights that require enormous sums of money and labor to implement without any democratically designed framework because they're a good idea. We have a route to do this, it's legislation and regulation. Note that in this particular case, while these things did not work perfectly - the Jackson water system had a lot of well-reported problems, and the lawsuit was filed in response to that - there's been hundreds of millions poured into remediating the problem. It is not simply being "ignored". People are not doing "nothing." The EPA, MSDH, and Jackson authorities have been working on the problem, not ignoring it because it's not a Constitutional right. In late 2025 the work resulted in the Jackson water supply once again meeting Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. Here is the latest comprehensive water quality report, on a reporting website that the DOJ, EPA, and courts forced JXN to create: https://jxnwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/JXNWater-2025-Water-Quality-Report.pdf https://jxnwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/JXNWater-202...
icedrift 27d ago
The headline look pretty accurate to me. Under this ruling, being a US citizen does not guarantee you a constitutional right to safe drinking water; that right would depend on state legislation. I think the bigger deal is that the people of Jackson were lied to and this sets the precedent that there is no recourse. It's not like someone in Flint knowingly drank contaminated water, the city withheld the fact that their water was contaminated with unsafe levels of lead.
- Smaug123 27d ago
  As the article says, the situation in Jackson was deplorable; and it is indeed mind-boggling (to my puny European mind) that the same constitution which grants freedom of speech and the press was also not intended to grant the right to receive only believed-correct information from the government. But the ruling, for example, is not quoted as making any mention of any federal laws? The headline may be true for all I know, but the article provides only evidence for its truth about one particular source of rights.
  - TheOtherHobbes 27d ago
    It is mind-boggling, but the US Constitution doesn't do that. It's not unique in that. Bad-faith pollution of truth is a new legal concept, and only a few countries have explicit legal protections against it. The UK had a case a few years ago where this was tested, the judgement was "Well, if we expected our politicians to tell the truth, where would that end, nyuck nyuck nyuck?" It's actually a tacit assumption that politicians and representatives lie, the media lie, and this is how things are. There are proposals in the UK and Wales to change this. My guess is they won't get anywhere near explicit approval in the UK. They might in the Welsh Senedd. Meanwhile the US has Fox claiming that it's an 'entertainment' channel, and no one should expect truth or honesty from it.
- throw93839394 27d ago
  There is another way to look at it. As water consumer, I have a right not to trust officials about tap water quality, and buy my own drinking water in plastic bottles! I use Jackson example, everytime someone pushes "tap water is safe" bs!
kstrauser 27d ago
The US Constitution, by itself, grants US citizens everything as a right, then enumerates the exceptions to those all-encompassing rights carved out as necessary for the operation of a government. The correct question is: Where does the US Constitution grant governments the power to poison and lie to residents? This isn’t some pedantry but fundamental American civics. The US Constitution explicitly does not enumerate rights. It’s default-allow, explicit-deny regarding human rights. It’s rather alarming that anyone would think it’s default-deny, explicit-allow. That’s not how the Constitution is written.
- JuniperMesos 27d ago
  By this logic, state employees and elected officials, who are themselves US citizens, have the right to say anything at all to the public, including blatant lies about public health issues, because there's no specific legal exception banning them from doing so.
  - kstrauser 27d ago
    As government representatives, they’re limited to the behavior that the Constitution grants to the government. Here’s an explainer to said Constitution you may find useful: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-1/enumerated-implied-resulting-and-inherent-powers https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec... After reading that, please do tell where the power to poison water and lie about it is granted to the government, and the members of that government.
  - Brian_K_White 27d ago
    They are only merely citizens outside of work, and they are indeed that free but only during those times. When they are at work acting as the state, they are the state and their actions are limited to the rights of the state. This should not have been something that needed explaining.
- toast0 27d ago
  The tenth amendment provides that the federal government has only the enumerated powers and everything else is for the States or the people. It doesn't limit the States to enumerated powers. I looked a bit in the early morning to see what arguments were effective in the Flint case which has similiar municipal activities... The case history there was too complex for me. Many suits in federal and state court, lots of federal suits dismissed for various reasons (mostly lack of standing if I understood the summary) and then a settlement in federal court that resolved all (most?) of the suits. I didn't really see a discussion of the legal theory from which liability arose, just what the remedy was and if it the settlement was reasonable for minors and unrepresented parties. Finding an argument that pleases the court and/or appealing to a higher court in the hopes that your argument pleases them is pendantry and american civics.

IsTom 27d ago

On the other hand it means that states can just not do that and leave their citizens without clean drinking water.

Smaug123 27d ago
Does it? I think that conclusion requires observing additionally that all federal law also fails to grant a right to safe drinking water, doesn’t it?
- gavinsyancey 27d ago
  Many municipal water systems are wholely in one state. Does the Constitution grant Congress the right to control municipal water quality? Also it's kind of a moot point if federal law has not granted that right and does not seem likely to.
  - rascul 27d ago
    Isn't that what the safe drinking water act is for?
u1hcw9nx 27d ago
Page 2 second paragraph."Rather, the remedy for Plaintiffs’ injuries lies in pursuing .." https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60370-CV1.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60370-CV1.pd...
- IsTom 27d ago
  Yes > Rather, the remedy for Plaintiffs’ injuries lies in pursuing tort claims, electing representatives who will better manage the public-water system, and petitioning their representatives for other remedies. which is easier said than done. From outside of US this seems extremely ass backwards.

cumshitpiss 27d ago

[dead]

ianjbutler 27d ago

> Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.” Nah, headline is optimistic actually: no right to clean water, to water tests, or to the truth about the tests if they occur. No right to healthcare, schools, or even deliverable mail either. But surely some of these are just the kind of thing you might expect as an absolute minimum everywhere if you have to pay taxes.

Smaug123 27d ago
Sorry, I think your pull quote is actually contradicting your gloss. Again, the pull quote states that it doesn’t infringe any constitutional right, not that it doesn’t infringe any rights granted for any other reason?
- ianjbutler 27d ago
  Cool cool, I can see you've got a sharp eye for detail my friend but let's really get down to it. What exactly is it that you really want to defend here? Why do you want to defend it? And more to the point, do you like drinking clean water? Do you think people should have it or not?
  - Amezarak 27d ago
    Speaking for GP, I want to have both a reasonable legal system and safe, clean drinking water. We can have both, and the former precludes the idea that plaintiffs and judges can simply invent new fundamental rights that require enormous sums of money and labor to implement without any democratically designed framework because they're a good idea. We have a route to do this, it's legislation and regulation. Note that in this particular case, while these things did not work perfectly - the Jackson water system had a lot of well-reported problems, and the lawsuit was filed in response to that - there's been hundreds of millions poured into remediating the problem. It is not simply being "ignored". People are not doing "nothing." The EPA, MSDH, and Jackson authorities have been working on the problem, not ignoring it because it's not a Constitutional right. In late 2025 the work resulted in the Jackson water supply once again meeting Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. Here is the latest comprehensive water quality report, on a reporting website that the DOJ, EPA, and courts forced JXN to create: https://jxnwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/JXNWater-2025-Water-Quality-Report.pdf https://jxnwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/JXNWater-202...

icedrift 27d ago

The headline look pretty accurate to me. Under this ruling, being a US citizen does not guarantee you a constitutional right to safe drinking water; that right would depend on state legislation. I think the bigger deal is that the people of Jackson were lied to and this sets the precedent that there is no recourse. It's not like someone in Flint knowingly drank contaminated water, the city withheld the fact that their water was contaminated with unsafe levels of lead.

Smaug123 27d ago
As the article says, the situation in Jackson was deplorable; and it is indeed mind-boggling (to my puny European mind) that the same constitution which grants freedom of speech and the press was also not intended to grant the right to receive only believed-correct information from the government. But the ruling, for example, is not quoted as making any mention of any federal laws? The headline may be true for all I know, but the article provides only evidence for its truth about one particular source of rights.
- TheOtherHobbes 27d ago
  It is mind-boggling, but the US Constitution doesn't do that. It's not unique in that. Bad-faith pollution of truth is a new legal concept, and only a few countries have explicit legal protections against it. The UK had a case a few years ago where this was tested, the judgement was "Well, if we expected our politicians to tell the truth, where would that end, nyuck nyuck nyuck?" It's actually a tacit assumption that politicians and representatives lie, the media lie, and this is how things are. There are proposals in the UK and Wales to change this. My guess is they won't get anywhere near explicit approval in the UK. They might in the Welsh Senedd. Meanwhile the US has Fox claiming that it's an 'entertainment' channel, and no one should expect truth or honesty from it.
throw93839394 27d ago
There is another way to look at it. As water consumer, I have a right not to trust officials about tap water quality, and buy my own drinking water in plastic bottles! I use Jackson example, everytime someone pushes "tap water is safe" bs!

kstrauser 27d ago

The US Constitution, by itself, grants US citizens everything as a right, then enumerates the exceptions to those all-encompassing rights carved out as necessary for the operation of a government. The correct question is: Where does the US Constitution grant governments the power to poison and lie to residents? This isn’t some pedantry but fundamental American civics. The US Constitution explicitly does not enumerate rights. It’s default-allow, explicit-deny regarding human rights. It’s rather alarming that anyone would think it’s default-deny, explicit-allow. That’s not how the Constitution is written.

JuniperMesos 27d ago
By this logic, state employees and elected officials, who are themselves US citizens, have the right to say anything at all to the public, including blatant lies about public health issues, because there's no specific legal exception banning them from doing so.
- kstrauser 27d ago
  As government representatives, they’re limited to the behavior that the Constitution grants to the government. Here’s an explainer to said Constitution you may find useful: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-1/enumerated-implied-resulting-and-inherent-powers https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec... After reading that, please do tell where the power to poison water and lie about it is granted to the government, and the members of that government.
- Brian_K_White 27d ago
  They are only merely citizens outside of work, and they are indeed that free but only during those times. When they are at work acting as the state, they are the state and their actions are limited to the rights of the state. This should not have been something that needed explaining.
toast0 27d ago
The tenth amendment provides that the federal government has only the enumerated powers and everything else is for the States or the people. It doesn't limit the States to enumerated powers. I looked a bit in the early morning to see what arguments were effective in the Flint case which has similiar municipal activities... The case history there was too complex for me. Many suits in federal and state court, lots of federal suits dismissed for various reasons (mostly lack of standing if I understood the summary) and then a settlement in federal court that resolved all (most?) of the suits. I didn't really see a discussion of the legal theory from which liability arose, just what the remedy was and if it the settlement was reasonable for minors and unrepresented parties. Finding an argument that pleases the court and/or appealing to a higher court in the hopes that your argument pleases them is pendantry and american civics.