NEW ORLEANS - A federal appeals court held Tuesday that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to clean drinking water, a ruling legal scholars described as narrow, consequential, and extremely inconvenient for anyone who has ever used the word hydration in a sentence.
The Fifth Circuit dismissed a lawsuit brought by Mississippi residents over lead-contaminated water, finding that while life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness remain foundational, they do not extend to filtered tap, unfiltered tap, or tap that looks like it has opinions.
"The Founders spoke in broad strokes," the court wrote. "They did not enumerate charcoal inserts."
Plaintiffs argued that unsafe water violated basic dignity. The court replied that dignity is aspirational and that plaintiffs remained free to pursue happiness through other channels, such as bottled water, relocation, or posting about the situation online until the algorithm loses interest.
Governor's office spokesperson Dana Krell welcomed the decision, calling it "a victory for federalism and for not opening a door every municipality in America would immediately walk through while holding a wrench." When asked whether the state would replace pipes, Krell said infrastructure is a shared responsibility, then clarified that by shared she meant mostly local, mostly later, and mostly not today.
Public health advocates called the ruling a setback. "We used to think lead was bad because of science," said Dr. Priya Nand. "Now we know it is bad because of jurisdiction."
Retailers reported a modest spike in pitcher sales, which economists classified as the first known example of happiness pursuing you back, briefly, before shipping delays.
The court emphasized it was not forbidding clean water, only declining to constitutionalize it. Americans remain at liberty to buy filters, dig wells, or boil water and pretend that counts as a plan. The opinion noted that Brita is a brand name and not a branch of government, a distinction several clerks confirmed after a long sidebar.
Mississippi residents said they would appeal, assuming they can find a printer that does not smear when the humidity rises from a glass of something they are technically free to call water.
In a concurring footnote, one judge added that the pursuit of happiness may include lemonade, but only if plaintiffs bring their own lemons and accept the risk that happiness, like water pressure, is not uniform across districts.
