Here is a summary and analysis of the Fifth Circuit’s November 17, 2025 opinion in Sterling v. City of Jackson, No. 24-60370 (5th Cir. 2025), which is available by clicking here.
📰 What’s the Case About
• Plaintiffs: Residents of Jackson, Mississippi (on behalf of themselves and a putative class) — families who drank, cooked, and bathed with the municipal water supply.
• Defendants: The City of Jackson plus certain city officials (mayors, public-works directors) and its contractor (Trilogy Engineering Services).
• Allegations:
1. The city knowingly contaminated the drinking water by supplying lead-contaminated water.
2. The city knew about the risk (acidic source water, deficient corrosion control, leaching lead from service lines), failed to correct it even after internal warnings, and instead switched to an even more corrosive source, worsening the contamination.
3. The city delayed or concealed dangerous test results, misled the public about water safety, and affirmatively pushed residents to continue using the water (for drinking, cooking, bathing).
4. Plaintiffs allege resulting serious and lifelong health harms from lead exposure (children with lead poisoning, developmental damage; adults with organ, neurological, dermatological harms).
• The Plaintiffs raised constitutional claims (substantive due process: right to bodily integrity / state-created danger) under the Fourteenth Amendment, and state-law claims (e.g., tort, negligence, statutory liability, though those were dismissed by the district court).
• The district court granted the city’s motion for judgment on the pleadings: it dismissed the substantive due-process claims (finding no plausible constitutional violation), granted qualified immunity to individual officials, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
• On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded: it held that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged a constitutional violation (bodily integrity / state-created danger) against the City and that their due-process claims could proceed. It vacated the state-law dismissal so those claims could be re-litigated. However, it affirmed dismissal of the individual-official defendants (qualified immunity) under present law.
⚖️ Holding
1. Fourteenth Amendment – Bodily Integrity / State-Created Danger
o The Fifth Circuit recognized that individuals have a constitutional right to bodily integrity — that is, a right not to have their bodily health impaired by the government injecting toxins into their water supply.
o Under existing Fifth Circuit precedent, a claim can proceed where a plaintiff alleges that a government entity affirmatively caused or exacerbated harmful conditions (not mere inaction), and misrepresented or concealed the danger. The court found the Complaint met that standard: the City allegedly made deliberate choices (source-water switch, failure of corrosion control, known acidic water), knowingly sent toxic water to homes, and misled residents, all while withholding critical information.
o The court held that the complaint “plausibly states a deprivation of the right to bodily integrity” and satisfies the “deliberate indifference” standard (i.e., not just negligent mismanagement but conscious disregard of an excessive risk).
2. State-Created Danger Doctrine Adopted for This Circuit in this Fact-Pattern
o The Fifth Circuit formally adopts the “state-created danger” theory in this context, meaning when the government itself creates or worsens a danger (rather than just fails to protect against a naturally occurring danger), constitutional liability is possible. The court remanded for further proceedings under that theory.
3. Individual Officials’ Qualified Immunity
o The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the individual city officials. It held that, at the time of the actions, the law was not sufficiently “clearly established” that supplying lead-contaminated water and assuring its safety violated the Constitution, so the officials are shielded by qualified immunity.
4. State-Law Claims Reinstated (for re-litigation)
o The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims (e.g., negligence, state statutory claims), so Plaintiffs may pursue those along with their constitutional claims in district court.
🔎 Why This Decision Matters
• Parallels to Flint: The court explicitly analogized Jackson’s water scandal to the Flint water crisis — calling it “one of the greatest public-health emergencies … in the United States in the last decade.”
• Constitutional Recognition of Water-Safety as Fundamental: By allowing a due-process claim based on bodily integrity and state-created danger, the court expands constitutional protections to include safe drinking water when the state itself pollutes the supply. This potentially opens the door for similar claims against other municipalities with contaminated water systems.
• Accountability for Municipal Mis-management & Cover-ups: The ruling rejects the idea that municipalities can shield themselves simply by pointing to old infrastructure or unplanned deterioration — if they knowingly worsen the problem, misrepresent risks, and conceal test results, they may be constitutionally liable.
• Dual Track: Federal Constitutional + State Western Tort Claims: The decision keeps both constitutional and traditional state-law causes of action alive — giving Plaintiffs maximum leverage (class-action tort remedies, injunctive relief, possibly large damages, statutory penalties).
⚠️ Limitations & Uncertainties — What the Decision Does Not Guarantee
• Qualified immunity remains for individuals: City officials named in the suit remain shielded (for now), meaning the lawsuit goes forward only against the City as an entity. That could reduce personal accountability for named officials, at least under current law.
• Plausibility standard — still early stage: The Fifth Circuit construed the facts “in the light most favorable” to Plaintiffs. On remand, defendants may move again on factual grounds; success is not guaranteed.
• State-law claims may still face hurdles: While reinstated, state-law causes of action (negligence, statutory claims, class action certification) still require proof, may face procedural defenses, and might yield different damages or remedies compared with federal constitutional claims.
• Remedy & relief uncertain: The opinion does not yet order a remedy — it simply allows the case to proceed. The ultimate outcome (class certification, injunctive relief, damages) remains to be litigated.
🧩 Strengths, Broader Implications, and Why This is a Landmark Case
Strengths
• The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning is forthright and fact-driven: it does not gloss over the public-health stakes, the City’s long knowledge of the problem, or the likely irreversible harms to residents (especially children). The majority corrects what it calls “the district court’s error” in dismissing the case, recognizing that constitutional protections must adapt to environmental and infrastructure-related threats when caused by the state itself.
• By adopting the state-created danger doctrine for municipal water crises, the court bridges doctrinal gaps — giving floating constitutional protection to those harmed by government-caused environmental contamination.
• For public-health + civil rights advocacy, this could become a template case for other municipalities whose water systems are old, treated insufficiently, or mismanaged (especially older, industrial cities).
Broader Implications
• The case will likely increase scrutiny on municipal water systems across the U.S., especially in older or financially troubled cities. Municipalities may face litigation if they knew of dangerous water conditions (lead, piping, acidity) and failed to remediate or lied to residents.
• This ruling may spur public-policy reforms: cities may accelerate lead-line replacement, improve corrosion-control treatment, increase transparency, and monitor water-quality more aggressively.
• For environmental justice and low-income, minority communities, this may provide a federal constitutional remedy where previously only tort or statutory claims existed — increasing leverage for remediation and accountability.
Risks / Criticisms / What to Watch
• On remand, courts may require extensive factual development, water-testing data, individualized proof of exposure, causation (linking health harms to lead contamination), which may be difficult or expensive to produce. Some defendants may succeed in narrowing the claims.
• Qualified immunity doctrine remains fluid, especially in circuits like the Fifth — it's possible that on appeal or in future cases, the scope of liability may be constrained.
• Risk of flood of litigation: accepting water-contamination constitutional claims broadly may open the floodgates, but not all claims will have the strong factual record Jackson has (known risk, city-wide contamination, public tests, failure to treat).
📌 Bottom Line
The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Sterling v. Jackson establishes a powerful precedent: a city can be constitutionally liable under the Fourteenth Amendment for knowingly delivering toxic drinking water and misleading residents about its safety. For Jackson, the case returns to district court for full discovery of factual claims, class certification, and eventual trial or settlement. More broadly, this decision offers a pathway for other communities harmed by municipal water contamination to seek constitutional relief — not just traditional tort damages. It marks a significant evolution in environmental public-health litigation and civil rights jurisprudence.
=========
The Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve birth injuries, brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries, severe burns, commercial plane crashes and commercial trucking crashes nationwide, and especially in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. James E. Girards is a private pilot licensed to fly single- and multi-engine aircraft in both visual and instrument conditions. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information.