Victims of Mississippi water crisis attempt to revive class action

(CN) — Residents of Jackson, Mississippi, fought to revive their class action against the city at the Fifth Circuit on Thursday, claiming they were denied due process in dealing with contaminated drinking water and inflated bills.

The case stems from the city’s long-running water crisis, which forced customers to endure lead contamination, low pressure, and outages while paying full rates and buying potable water from other sources. In the lawsuit, filed on behalf of potentially thousands of Jackson residents, they claim violations of procedural due process under the 14th Amendment and state breach of contract laws.

Plaintiffs Clifton Jackson, Helen Noel, and William Noel initially said the city deprived them of a protected property interest by charging for undrinkable water without adequate hearings to address quality issues. U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate dismissed the case in March 2025, ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing because their water service was never terminated and that administrative processes for billing disputes were sufficient.

On appeal, the plaintiffs contend the Ronald Reagan appointee erred by ignoring concrete injuries like economic losses from buying alternative water and by denying leave to amend the complaint to include new facts from federal EPA interventions.

Attorney Brent Hazzard, representing the plaintiffs, opened arguments by reserving time for questions and emphasizing candor. He said that, based on current understanding, the EPA and Jackson’s water management have improved the water quality since the lawsuit was filed, underscoring the plaintiffs’ injury, as ethical rules require revealing material facts only when real harm exists.

Hazzard also stressed the case’s ties to broader municipal mismanagement, including a failed $90 million contract with Siemens for meter upgrades that led to inaccurate billing. He referenced over 300 boil-water notices between 2020 and 2022, contaminants like E. coli, lead, and copper, and federal oversight that placed the system under a third-party manager.

The appellants sought to add both the government and the manager as defendants in an amended complaint, which the district court rejected as futile. Hazzard noted the city’s counsel did not oppose adding these parties and pointed to a recent ruling in a related case before Wingate, where intervenors delayed proceedings due to evolving EPA plans.

“Three years ago, no one knew how EPA or Jackson Water was going to work because this was unprecedented,” he said.

Responding to questions from U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen A. Higginson about the adequacy of administrative hearings, Hazzard argued the processes were limited to billing errors and excluded water quality complaints.

“Jackson residents have faced not only problems with inaccurate billing, but also with the quality of drinking water, issues such as lead contamination, aging infrastructure and serious disruptions," Hazard said. Yet, he claimed, the lower court applied improper evidentiary standards under, ignoring accusations in the complaint. “The administrative judge had nothing to do with that.”

Hazard also detailed the plaintiffs’ experiences: Rev. Clifton Jackson faced a $5,000 bill and termination notice, partially forgiven but not fully refunded, while the Noels received a $1,159 credit after a hearing that ignored quality issues. Hazzard argued this violates precedents that protect against utility deprivations without process. He analogized contaminated water to moldy bread, implying customers at a bakery would not be obligated to purchase a similarly defective product.

For the city of Jackson, attorney Drew Martin countered by focusing on the complaint’s specifics, urging the court to stick to procedural due process rather than substantive issues in other litigation. He described the claims as a “moving target,” noting the original complaint centered on billing, where plaintiffs succeeded in hearings — one getting a leak-related credit, the other unspecified relief.

Martin argued no deprivation occurred without service termination, as required by precedent.

“There wasn’t ever a termination of water, there wasn’t ever a termination of utility services,” he noted, dismissing quality complaints as customer disputes, not constitutional violations. “The plaintiffs paid their water bills voluntarily. They paid it for utility service. They received utility service, and that’s all it is. The rest of this, frankly, is customer disputes.”

Addressing Higginson’s hypothetical about lead-contaminated water like in Flint, Michigan, Martin conceded potential tort or contract claims but insisted the plaintiff’s complaint lacked specifics.

“What we don’t have here is specific factual pleadings beyond brown water and metal flecks were found in the filter,” Martin said. “They said it was not drinkable, but they didn’t say why.”

He noted plaintiffs never filed complaints to public works or tested their water, while the utility’s quarterly reports voluntarily provided contaminant info.

“There is no constitutional property interest in a perfect utility being provided,” Martin concluded. “Power goes out, water services get disrupted. It happens, and it happened in Jackson.”

In rebuttal, Hazzard reiterated the amended complaint’s details: “undrinkable water, water with contaminants, water with disease causing organisms.” He highlighted efforts to inspect plumbing, canceled by the lower court judge, and argued the termination notice to Jackson satisfied standing thresholds.

Higginson is an appointee of Barack Obama. The panel also included U.S. Circuit Judges Priscilla Richman and Andrew Oldham, appointees of George W. Bush and Donald Trump, respectively. No decision was issued; the court will rule later.

Follow @gabetynes