“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Residents of Jackson, Mississippi, sued the government for knowingly providing city water with dangerous levels of lead and then misleading residents about the dangers.
What happened in this case?
Residents of Jackson, Mississippi claimed that the city introduced lead into their drinking water, pumped it into their homes, and lied about whether the water was safe. Among other things, they claimed that this violated their right to bodily integrity, which is a fundamental liberty protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. This is the same right that the Supreme Court has held protects a person’s constitutional right to refuse medical treatment.
They also claimed that by exposing residents to a danger that the government itself created, the government violated their constitutional right to be free from “state-created danger.”
But a federal district court dismissed their case. That judge ruled that even if every fact alleged by the residents was true, it still didn’t violate the Constitution. The residents appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
What did the panel majority decide?
The November 2025 case was Sterling v. City of Jackson.
A divided three-judge panel reversed the lower court in an opinion written by George W. Bush judge Catharina Haynes and joined by Clinton judge James Dennis. They went through the Jackson residents’ allegations in detail, describing how the city “knowingly contaminated otherwise clean water with lead, pumped the toxic water to its residents' taps, and told them it was safe to drink.”
They ruled that the residents’ allegations, if true, constituted a violation both of their constitutional right to bodily integrity and their constitutional right to be free from state-created danger. Therefore, the majority concluded, they have a right to a trial where they can prove their case.
What did Trump judge Engelhardt try to do in dissent?
Judge Engelhardt dissented. He condemned the line of Supreme Court cases protecting rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. He accused the majority of exercising the “fictitious power” to “transform[] the Due Process Clause into the policy preferences of an unelected judiciary.” And he accused the majority of opening a “Pandora's box of substantive due process claims.”
Engelhardt also claimed that the actions of the government may have been negligent or incompetent, but they did not “shock the conscience.” Writing separately, Judge Dennis stated that in order to reach that conclusion, Engelhardt’s dissent “constructs an alternative factual narrative – one more fitting for defense counsel than for an appellate court.”
How would this have been harmful?
Had Engelhardt been in the majority, the residents of Jackson would not have their day in court. In addition, his narrow view of the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment would make all people of the Fifth Circuit – Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana – less free.