I think this is a ruling that's hard to justify. There are many frameworks under which the judge could have chosen to rule, it could be treated as assault, or some type of aggravated assault/battery, if the lead can be measured in the people who consumed it, it could be treated as fraud, since the water is presumably sold, etc. and reasoning about that it would ordinarily be a punishable tort would make it clear that the government can't impose that sort of thing either, just as it can't send anyone out to punch people.
What I'm saying though, is that he has room enough to interpret things so that a dismissal isn't necessary.
It isn't the job of the courts to make minimal rulings and avoiding all substantial questions, but to solve disputes. Here we have a case where the government has harmed people in a way that would be a tort if it had been done by anybody else, and people arguing that the government by doing so breached a right. There is presumably a right which can be interpreted as guaranteeing that people's bodies won't be messed with, or things in the US would be quite strange, so there's room to do something useful here, and the judge's choice is not forced.
Exactly, unless they ignore that and decide based on precedent. But after we fence them in with arguments, evidence, AND precedence then surely.. oh nope, they could ignore those things and talk about reliance interest! I'm sure someone wrote down exactly how much reliance interest is "sufficient" to justify doing something else though. No? Gosh it sounds like a rigorous process and all but I'm starting to think maybe they just do whatever they want
Yes, of course, but he interprets the arguments and evidence presented to them.
Here he chooses to interpret what they say as demanding the recognition of a new constitutional right to safe water and to correct information. It is not at all clear that that's a good choice.
He could equally well interpret the situation by analogy: the government deliberately tricked people into drinking unsafe water, and people were, depending on whether there is evidence of poisoning from the lead, either provably or not provably harmed.
Thus it is open to him to interpret their question as one that is not so focused on novel constitutional rights.
Again, the plaintiffs choose the argument. They choose to use a statute, 42 U.S. Code § 1983, that starts:
> Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law [...]
and what they said they had been deprived of is their substantive due process rights.
The plaintiffs brought a Constitutional argument. The court ruled on the Constitutional argument.
When you file a lawsuit you basically say two things:
1. Defendant(s) did this things which harmed me.
2. This violates these specific laws and you list those laws and explain how the things from #1 violate them.
The trial court determines which of the things in #1 that you allege are true. Then, if they determine that at least some of them are true, they figure out which of the specific laws from #2 were violated.
The losing party can appeal. The appellate court takes as given whichever of the things in #1 that the trial court found to be true, and just reviews the trial court's application of the laws.
It is possible that the trial court will notice (and it they don't the defendant will bring it to their attention) that even if everything you claim in #1 is true, it would not violate any of the laws you listed in #2. The trial court will them dismiss the case unless you file an amendment that fixes the problem. The dismissal will be "without prejudice" which means you can later file again with a hopefully better drafted complaint.
The important thing here is you don't just go to courts saying "These people hurt me in this way, please punish them". You have to be specific, saying "These people broke these specific laws. Here are the things they did that broke those laws".
In this case plaintiffs said those laws were ones that had not before been interpreted as applying to their situation. The lower courts dismissed the case. The appellate court decided that those laws indeed do not apply, so dismissed the case.
They are not saying plaintiffs were not injured. Plaintiffs are free to continue legal action--they just have to sue using laws that do apply to their situation.
Yes, but the court in this case, is taking a particular interpretation that overstates the novelty of the rights claim.
The people bringing the lawsuit are not in fact asserting a right to clean water, they are asserting a right to not be deliberately poisoned by deception.
Does that mean you can build precedents with "matchfixing"? Like pay the plaintiff under the table to throw his case by presenting really bad arguments? And then subsequent cases must reference that result?
This is something that is always fundamentally misunderstood. Of course, judges can extend courtesy but most modern systems are designed on pretty much the accuser arguing their case against the defender with the judge deciding based on law plus arguments presented in court.
The ruling expressly states that they are free to pursue whatever tort claims they want. This ruling is about violations of constitutional rights and standing to sue under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights.
Still, it's very obviously a deprivation of right to deliberately trick people into drinking poisoned water or other poisoned things.
The right not to be deliberately poisoned doesn't disappear just because the act was achieved by leading you to the poisoned object and deceiving you that it was safe, instead of handing you an object that has been poisoned by hand.
This does not imply a right to clean water, as the judge chooses to interpret their question as asking him to recognize, and shows that his choice is in fact sufficient even if that is what they asked.
