Plaintiffs ... seek recognition of two new constitutional rights lacking any foundation in the history and tradition of our Nation—the right to be free from exposure to contaminated water and the right to accurate information from public officials.

This is like filing a bug report that the Linux kernel allowed your Thunderbird to receive SPAM email containing false information. It's just a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government is designed to work. Closed by Fifth Circuit as WONTFIX, file request for constitutional amendment (RFC) if desired.

▲

tgsovlerkhgsel 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Generally, I've seen courts derive this kind of right from general rights like "the state cannot just arbitrarily kill or maim you", which (hopefully) are explicitly written down. So it doesn't feel that unreasonable to ask the court to specify that "the state cannot just arbitrarily kill or maim you" extends to "the state cannot arbitrarily lie to you in ways that will endanger your life/health".

▲

gpvos 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The first one I can understand from history (although I do not agree for modern times). But the right to accurate information from public officials, I thought that was indeed an absolute and basic right in a democracy, and it should very strongly be and always have been. (Exceptions like "national security" notwithstanding, and those should probably be more narrowly restricted than they are now.)

▲

dgellow 23 minutes ago | parent [-]

Time to stop considering the US a democracy? It feels the country is it’s own weird system now, not sure how to classify it but something I would call Trumpocracy. The democratic processes don’t seem to serve the people, it’s all hacks to try to use the system against itself to entrench the administration ideology (some might draw parallels to history here)

▲

markvdb 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy...

▲

gpvos 22 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Parts of it still work, but the core is rotten.

	▲	dgellow 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The local democratic processes seem to be in better shape than at the federal level. At least as seen from afar

▲

raverbashing an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

100% this

These headlines is just press fodder for the grievances-industrial-complex to cry about how the gov is incompetent

▲

noja an hour ago | parent [-]

Why is someone who wants non-contaminated drinking water incompetent?

▲

dotancohen an hour ago | parent [-]

Not everything you want - or need - is a right.

And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

▲

eviks an hour ago | parent | next [-]

But this are just empty statements.

You forgot the actual argument about why this want and this way of getting it is a sign of incompetence

▲

stuartjohnson12 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am absolutely mindboggled at the idea that you think the US should not guarantee safe drinking water everywhere for everyone. Unless this comment is pedantic legal snark.

	▲	41 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	raverbashing an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Guarantee of safe water is a right (as given by EPA regulations, etc) But it is not a constitutional right Because putting it where it doesn't belong, without any quantification, is meaningless

▲

embedding-shape an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Not everything you want - or need - is a right.

Ok, agreed. But safe drinking water, should maybe be one of the exceptions?

> And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

What's a better way to guarantee safe drinking water to everyone?

	▲	andai 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> safe drinking water, should maybe be one of the exceptions? If we invert it to the actual reality (many places have unsafe drinking water), then we get "the right to avoid being poisoned by your government". It sounds obvious to me that that should already be the case. But I don't know much about water treatment. Maybe it isn't always feasible? Do people just have to drink bottled water in some places? Or get reverse osmosis filters?

▲

pvaldes an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The authorities assuring that the drinking water that is sold to you is really of drinking water grade is the most basic of the basic rights. Not a luxury. The "right to culture almonds" or to have a pool is a different question.

▲

thrance an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're not making an argument there. The people, through the government, chooses what is a right and what isn't. Not you alone. Clean drinking water seems pretty fucking important to me, and to a lot of other people too, it seems.

▲

vrganj 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But maybe it should be? What does it say about the US government apparatus and its basic claims to legitimacy if it can't even guarantee safe drinking water? What lack of aspiration and ambition does such a denial demonstrate? Why should its citizens accept such an abdication of even the most basic duties?

▲

noja an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What is drinking water for then, if not for drinking?

▲

hatefulheart an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Stop editing your ridiculous comment.

Rights are enshrined by society, it’s what we choose. Nothing is a right in and of itself contrary to what your comment tries to imply.

	▲	BetterThanSober 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The natural state of being is freedom, it up to society to restrict what they deemed necessary and punish the offenders. Unless the body of water or reservoir are claimed by the government then it is free for anyone to use, quality notwithstanding. Safe, clean water implies certain amount of processing and I agree that unless it is explicitly written then it is up to the users to sanitize that water

▲

earth-tattoo 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Election integrity and plugging birthright citizenship are two bigger issues that require constitution amendments.

	▲	softwaredoug 27 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There basically is no election fraud In 2020 Trump admin tried very hard to find some and there attempts were thrown out in court 59/60 cases The only thing they won on involved a Pennsylvania judge extending mail in ballot deadline beyond their authority. Not a case of fraud.
	▲	kristopolous 6 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Denying citizenship is about denying constitutional rights to large groups of people. Fascist governments routinely strip targeted populations of legal protections and citizenship rights to consolidate state power. Claiming "election integrity" is all about reproducing this: Benito Mussolini in Italy utilized single-slate plebiscites under the watch of violent squadristi (Blackshirts) to produce near-unanimous results. When people call this stuff fascism, it's not hand-waving nonsense. It's hyper-specific, extremely precise, rigorously cited claims like when they said about political dissent, "they will find you and kill you". https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-U...
	▲	vrganj 36 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"Plugging"? You mean "fundamentally altering the self-perception of the country founded on immigration"?