1. United States
2. N.Y.
3. Letter

I am writing in anger about the Fifth Circuit’s September 4, 2026 decision in Sterling v. City of Jackson. The court held that the Constitution does not guarantee clean water or a right to accurate information from public officials about contaminated tap water. Judge Engelhardt wrote that it is “undisputed that the Constitution does not guarantee clean water,” and that lead-contaminated water, while “grievous,” does not violate a “deeply rooted” constitutional right. That conclusion is morally indefensible. Safe water is not a luxury and it is not a political favor. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights said it plainly in General Comment No. 15 on the ICESCR: the human right to water is indispensable for a life of dignity. It is essential to an adequate standard of living under Article 11 and to the highest attainable standard of health under Article 12. Water that is unsafe because of lead and official neglect is not a technical inconvenience. It is an attack on bodily integrity, on children, and on the basic conditions of a livable life. Jackson residents alleged years of contaminated water and misleading official statements. The court’s answer was, in substance: the harm may be real, but the Constitution will not help you. That is not restraint. That is abandonment. A government that can poison a city’s tap water, deny the danger, and then hide behind the claim that clean water is not a right has failed the most elementary duty it owes the people who live under it. I am asking you to do four things: Publicly reject the idea that clean drinking water is optional. Support federal legislation and funding that treats safe water as a guaranteed public obligation, not a local afterthought. Push for real accountability and remediation in Jackson and in every community facing similar contamination. Work with colleagues to establish clear statutory rights and enforcement tools so families are not told that lead in their tap is “grievous” but legally irrelevant. People should not have to sue for the right not to drink poison. If the Constitution as interpreted by this court will not protect that, Congress and state legislatures must. Do not treat this as a sad but settled technicality. Treat it as the emergency it is.