The ruling in one minute
No constitutional right recognized
The en banc Fifth Circuit held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not create the specific substantive-due-process rights asserted by Jackson residents: a right to be free from government-caused exposure to contaminated municipal water and a right to truthful contamination information from public officials.
10 judges to 5
Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt wrote the majority. Judge Catharina Haynes wrote the opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Constitutional claims, not all water law
The decision did not repeal the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA drinking-water standards, state-law remedies, or the separate federal enforcement case concerning Jackson’s water system.
Participating judges: 15. Judges Leslie Southwick and James Graves Jr. were recused and did not participate.
Who was involved in Sterling v. City of Jackson
Jackson residents
- Priscilla Sterling
- Raine Becker
- Shawn Miller
- John Bennett
They sued individually and, for several claims, on behalf of others similarly situated.
City, officials and contractor
- City of Jackson, Mississippi
- Chokwe A. Lumumba
- Tony Yarber
- Kishia Powell
- Robert Miller
- Jerriot Smash
- Trilogy Engineering Services, L.L.C.
The majority noted that the complaint contained no factual allegations tying former Interim Public Works Director Jerriot Smash to management of the water system, so claims against him were dismissed.
The 15 participating Fifth Circuit judges
Majority — 10
Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod; Judges Edith Jones, Jerry E. Smith, Priscilla Richman, Don Willett, James Ho, Stuart Kyle Duncan, Kurt D. Engelhardt, Andrew Oldham and Cory Wilson.
Dissenting bloc — 5
Judges Carl E. Stewart, Catharina Haynes, Stephen Higginson, Dana Douglas and Irma Carrillo Ramirez.
Recused — 2
Judges Leslie Southwick and James E. Graves Jr. did not participate in the en banc decision.
How the case reached the 2026 en banc ruling
Federal civil-rights suit filed
The Jackson residents brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and also asserted state-law tort claims. The federal case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, No. 3:22-CV-531.
2025
Three-judge panel allows key claim to proceed
A panel of Judges James Dennis, Catharina Haynes and Kurt Engelhardt reversed in part and allowed a bodily-integrity theory to move forward. Judge Haynes wrote the panel opinion; Judge Engelhardt largely dissented.
2026
Full court grants rehearing en banc
A majority of active, non-disqualified Fifth Circuit judges voted for rehearing. Under Fifth Circuit Rule 41.3, the November 2025 panel opinion was vacated.
2026
En banc oral argument
The full participating court heard argument on the constitutional theories and related defenses.
2026
En banc decision issued
The court affirmed dismissal of the §1983 claims in a 10–5 split. The state-law claims remained dismissed without prejudice after the federal claims were dismissed.
What law actually controlled the dispute
Fourteenth Amendment
The residents relied on substantive due process, arguing that government-caused lead exposure and misleading safety information implicated protected liberty interests, including bodily integrity.
42 U.S.C. §1983
Section 1983 provides a vehicle to sue state actors for deprivation of federal rights. It does not itself create the underlying constitutional right.
Safe Drinking Water Act
42 U.S.C. §300f et seq. authorizes EPA to establish health-based standards for public water systems. Those statutory and regulatory duties are separate from the Fifth Circuit’s constitutional analysis.
28 U.S.C. §1367(c)
After the federal claims were dismissed, the state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice, allowing state-law theories to remain distinct from the failed federal constitutional theory.
State-created danger doctrine
The dissent emphasized the theory that government actors may face constitutional liability when they affirmatively create or increase a danger. The en banc majority did not recognize a new substantive-due-process right on the facts alleged. The dissent noted that multiple sister circuits recognize versions of state-created-danger liability.
What federal and state agencies say about Jackson’s water system
This section separates the constitutional holding in Sterling from the government’s separate drinking-water enforcement record. The Fifth Circuit decided whether the plaintiffs had stated federal constitutional claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §1983. Federal and state agencies, meanwhile, have addressed Jackson’s water system through the Safe Drinking Water Act, regulatory oversight, court orders, technical requirements, and infrastructure work.
The federal government alleged unreliable Safe Drinking Water Act compliance
In November 2022, the Justice Department, on behalf of EPA, filed a complaint alleging that the City of Jackson had failed to provide drinking water that was reliably compliant with the Safe Drinking Water Act. At the same time, the United States, the City of Jackson and the Mississippi State Department of Health agreed to an interim court order designed to stabilize the system while longer-term compliance issues were addressed.
The court-appointed manager was given operational authority
The Interim Stipulated Order appointed Edward “Ted” Henifin, operating through JXN Water, as Interim Third-Party Manager for the drinking-water system. EPA describes the order as establishing a priority-project list, assigning responsibility for system management and operations, and creating an interim framework while the parties work toward long-term Safe Drinking Water Act compliance.
Federal regulators report measurable system improvements
EPA reports that work began on all priority projects and that temporary improvements were completed. The agency says water-treatment-plant repairs improved system reliability, leak repairs produced a 25% decrease in average daily demand, winterization increased reliable winter production, and work continued on pressure stabilization, valves, pipes and hydrants.
The state’s lead data is more specific than “lead was everywhere”
MSDH states that three of 160 lead-and-copper tap samples collected between January and June 2021 exceeded the then-15 ppb action level. MSDH also says there was no indication of elevated lead in Jackson’s source water; lead detected in older homes can come from plumbing materials. The department further states that Jackson remained subject to corrosion-control requirements and regulatory oversight.
Federal oversight identified both local-capacity and state-support problems
An EPA Inspector General review concluded that lack of state financial support and limited local capacity prolonged Jackson’s drinking-water problems. The report described longstanding operations-and-maintenance challenges and said those weaknesses contributed to the system’s inability to respond effectively when floodwater changed source-water chemistry during the August 2022 crisis.
The system is no longer being run through the old city operating model
The City of Jackson directs water customers and developers to JXN Water, which operates the city’s water system under the court-established management structure. That distinction matters when discussing present-day operations: many of the allegations in Sterling concern earlier conduct, while the system has since undergone court-supervised management and infrastructure changes.
Constitutional liability and regulatory noncompliance are different questions
A water system can face regulatory violations, corrective orders, infrastructure mandates or enforcement litigation even when a court concludes that the same facts do not establish the particular constitutional right asserted in a §1983 suit. The article should therefore distinguish “the Constitution does not guarantee clean water” from the very different proposition that “government has no legal duties concerning drinking water.”
Why Judge Engelhardt’s majority rejected the federal claims
No deeply rooted right identified
The majority relied on Supreme Court substantive-due-process cases requiring careful definition of the claimed right and a strong historical foundation before recognizing a new constitutional liberty interest.
No general constitutional duty to provide a minimum service level
Citing cases including DeShaney and Youngberg, the opinion said the Constitution generally does not guarantee a particular level of public-service quality or safety.
Water exposure was treated differently from direct physical intrusion
The majority declined to equate the alleged contamination and misinformation with precedents involving forced medical procedures, physical evidence extraction or other direct invasions of the body.
“It is undisputed that the Constitution does not guarantee clean water.”— Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt, majority opinion, Sept. 4, 2026
The precise holding
The court held that the plaintiffs did not allege a cognizable substantive-due-process violation and therefore could not maintain the federal §1983 claims. The majority repeatedly distinguished constitutional remedies from tort, regulatory, legislative and electoral remedies.
Why Judge Haynes and four colleagues disagreed
Judge Catharina Haynes, joined by Judges Stewart, Higginson, Douglas and Ramirez, emphasized the procedural posture: because the district court dismissed at the pleading stage, the court had to accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true.
The dissent described allegations that Jackson officials did more than fail to deliver ideal municipal services. It said the complaint alleged that government actions introduced or exacerbated lead contamination, delivered the water to homes, and misled or withheld information about the risks.
The dissent highlighted allegations that several of Priscilla Sterling’s children had been diagnosed with lead poisoning and that Shawn Miller, John Bennett and members of their households exhibited effects attributed to lead poisoning or other contamination.
Core disagreement
Majority: recognizing liability would create a new substantive-due-process right without adequate historical grounding.
Dissent: the alleged affirmative government conduct plausibly implicated existing bodily-integrity and state-created-danger principles and should have survived dismissal.
Qualified immunity supplied an additional barrier
Was a federal right violated?
The majority answered no: it found no cognizable substantive-due-process right on these facts.
Was the right clearly established?
The majority also said that even assuming a constitutional violation, the individual officials would be protected because no controlling authority or robust consensus clearly established the specific rights asserted at the relevant time.
The constitutional case exists alongside separate federal water enforcement
On November 29, 2022, DOJ, acting for EPA, filed a separate federal complaint alleging that Jackson had failed to provide drinking water reliably compliant with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The same day, a federal court entered an Interim Stipulated Order agreed to by EPA, DOJ, the Mississippi State Department of Health and the City of Jackson.
The order created a priority-project framework and appointed Edward “Ted” Henifin as Interim Third-Party Manager to operate and stabilize the water system.
EPA later reported that repairs improved reliability and reduced average daily demand by about 25%. A JXN Water quarterly report for Q4 2025 stated that the system was operationally stable and meeting Safe Drinking Water Act standards, apart from brief local interruptions during repairs.
Why this distinction matters
Sterling concerned whether residents had a federal constitutional damages theory under §1983. EPA/DOJ enforcement concerns compliance with a federal drinking-water statute and regulations. Losing one constitutional theory does not erase the statutory regime.
Operational figures above are reported by EPA/JXN Water for specified reporting periods; they are not findings from the Fifth Circuit opinion.
Jackson and Flint produced different appellate approaches
Sterling v. City of Jackson
The en banc court rejected the asserted substantive-due-process theories. The majority said it was “not bound, nor persuaded” by the Sixth Circuit’s Flint analysis.
Guertin v. Michigan (2019)
The Sixth Circuit held that Flint plaintiffs plausibly alleged a bodily-integrity violation arising from government conduct that exposed residents to lead-contaminated water.
Why the difference matters
The cases show materially different approaches by federal appellate courts to constitutional bodily-integrity claims arising from contaminated municipal water. That disagreement can become relevant in future litigation or a petition for Supreme Court review, although review is discretionary and no outcome should be assumed.
Read the record
QBH separates allegations, procedural assumptions, legal holdings and outside regulatory facts. Statements about what plaintiffs alleged are not presented as adjudicated facts unless the cited source says otherwise. This article is informational and not legal advice.