A Trump-appointed judge also said Americans have no “constitutional right to truthful information” during a public health crisis.

On Friday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against the city of Jackson, Mississippi, which alleged the city knowingly let residents drink lead-contaminated water.

The lawsuit, first filed in 2022, says the contamination violated Jacksonians’ constitutional right to bodily integrity. Donald Trump-appointed judge Kurt Engelhardt disagreed. “The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing,” Engelhardt said.

“Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.”

  • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Says right here, “Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.”

    Without clean water there’s no life. With no life, there’s no liberty, and no pursuing happiness.

    How do you “promote the general welfare” with filthy, poisonous water?

    This is like the most fundamental thing, even Rome provided clean water. We’ve been surpassed by ancient Rome.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Not sure why I have to be the person in this thread to explain basic civics to everyone, but “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is from the Declaration of Independence, it is not in the US Constitution.

      The Declaration is not law, it was just a declaration. You can’t cite it like this, that’s not how it works.

      • cyberfae@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It’s actually in section 1 of the 14th amendment:

        All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    • credo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Yes, but- Someone forgot to transfer that line to the constitution. We’re all going to die or become bonded corporate slaves because of an administrative oversight.

      Edit: on second thought, maybe the first one was a well-written a call to arms and they knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the actual charter.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      The preamble to US constitition has zero legal bearing on the US. There has never been a legal case in the US where “preamble based natural justice” was accepted as a legitimate basis for complaint. If your complaint was only based on the preamble, normal judicial practice would be to dismiss it as frivolous, and force you to pay defendants’ court costs.

      • TronBronson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s not even in the preamble of the constitution, that quote is from the Declaration of Independence. It also went on to say all men were created equal forgetting slavery

      • 4am@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Well it does explain that the enumerated rights are a non-exclusive, non-exhaustive list. So while it doesn’t have any direct legal weight, it certainly explains how they expected the document to be interpreted