Courts Limit Environmental Federal Constitutional Claims as State Rights Evolve

On September 4, 2026, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Sterling v. City of Jackson, Docket No. 24-60370, held that there is neither a federal constitutional right to be free from exposure to contaminated water nor a right to accurate information from public officials. The Sterling case joins a string of case outcomes adjudicating constitutional rights to clean or safe environmental conditions at the state and federal levels.

The plaintiffs in Sterling alleged physical harm from lead in city-provided drinking water and sued City of Jackson officials, alleging violations of Due Process and Equal Protection rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court, however, refused to recognize that plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were harmed when City of Jackson officials “incorrectly” represented that the city-provided water, which contained lead, was safe to drink. Notably, the plaintiffs’ state law claims were also dismissed when the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims were dismissed.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed a parallel federal lawsuit in 2022 alleging violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA’s allegations included failure to maintain effective treatment under the Lead and Copper Rule. The enforcement action remains active and under Court supervision. In contrast, the State of Mississippi took no enforcement action, and the EPA Office of Inspector General found that the state lacked adequate enforcement and failed to report violations in a timely manner. Thus, constitutional claims arose in the context of delayed or missing state enforcement of its own statutory scheme and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

While Sterling may be seen as a move against the expansion of environmental rights at the federal constitutional level, it does not necessarily affect the movement towards realization of state constitutional rights to a safe environment. The Climate Litigation Database reports over 3,000 lawsuits have been filed across around 60 countries, raising expectations of both governments and businesses to address climate risks and impacts, or risk suit. Among the most high-profile cases in the United States, the Montana Supreme Court in Held v. Montana decided that Article II, Section 3, of the Montana Constitution guarantees all persons certain inalienable rights, “includ[ing] the right to a clean and healthful environment,” and accordingly, that Montanans have a constitutional right to a stable climate system. The Court ruled that Montana state laws prohibiting agencies from considering greenhouse gas emissions during environmental reviews were unconstitutional. The court ruled 6-1 that a 2023 law, which prohibited state agencies from considering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their climate impacts when permitting energy projects, was unconstitutional. The Court affirmed that citizens have enforceable constitutional rights which arise from Montana’s state constitutional mandate that the government “maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment” for present and future generations.

On the other hand, several state cases remain pending that could generate conflicting directions in the ability to claim constitutional environmental rights. In April 2026, a Wisconsin state court dismissed a suit under the Wisconsin state constitution, which sought to challenge statutes that required the defendant state agency to approve certain fossil fuel-fired plants and limited the agency defendant’s ability to consider those plants’ impact on air quality, thereby depriving plaintiffs of their enjoyment and, in some cases, causing illness, in Dunn v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. That case, decided under the political question doctrine which left policy-making to the Legislature, is currently on appeal. Still pending is Roberts v. Department of Natural Resources, in which ten youth plaintiffs sued state defendants in Utah District Court, alleging that the state’s issuance of permits for fossil fuel development violates their fundamental rights to life and liberty under Article I, Sections 1 (right to “enjoy” life) and 7 (protection against deprivation of life without due process) of the Utah Constitution; that case is before the Utah Supreme Court on an emergency petition to block transfer of the case to a three-judge panel. Similarly, Atencio v. State of New Mexico, alleging violation of that state’s constitutional provision addressing pollution control (Article 20, Section 21). There, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, but the appellate court dismissed the constitutional claim under the Pollution Control Clause, and the matter is before the New Mexico Supreme Court.

Whether or not the Held result is replicated will be developed on a state-by-state basis as particular constitutional provisions come into play. These cases form a counterpoint to Sterling and serve as a reminder that while state Constitutional law cannot drop below minimum federal constitutional standards, they can provide remedies above and as alternatives to federal constitutional rulings where not otherwise preempted. In addition, this issue can develop through efforts to amend state statutes and constitutions to add or expand environmental rights. Recently, these efforts have had mixed results. For example, 2023-24 Colorado Initiative #272 would have added a right to a safe environment with citizen enforcement but was denied at the title-setting stage. It is likely that such actions will continue at the state level, with varying degrees of success.