U.S. Supreme Court allows Flint water contamination lawsuits by Lawrence Hurley, Additional reporting by Barbara Grzincic and Ben Klayman, March 19, 2018, Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday gave the green light to two class-action lawsuits filed by residents of Flint, Michigan who are pursing civil rights claims against local and state officials over lead contamination in the city’s water supply.
The justices left in place a July 2017 ruling by the Cincinnati, Ohio-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that revived the litigation after the lawsuits were thrown out by a lower court.
The high court rejected separate appeals filed by the city of Flint, Genesee County’s drainage commissioner and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality officials.
The 6th Circuit decided that the civil rights claims brought by the plaintiffs under federal law could proceed, ruling they were not precluded by a statute that sets the standards for drinking water, the Safe Drinking Water Act. That law has its own provisions for people to file suit over unsafe water, although they cannot seek monetary damages like those available under civil rights law.
Flint, a predominantly black city, switched its public water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River in a cost-cutting move in April 2014. The polluted river water caused lead to leach from pipes. Lead poisoning stunts children’s cognitive development. No level of exposure is considered safe.
The city switched back to Lake Huron water in October 2015, but lead levels remained above federal standards until early 2017.
The crisis prompted several lawsuits against the city, state, Republican Governor Rick Snyder and several individual city and state officials. Two of those suits were the subject of the Supreme Court appeals.
In one, Melissa Mays and several other Flint-based parents sued in November 2015 on behalf of themselves and their children. In the other, Flint residents Beatrice Boler, Edwin Anderson and others sued in January 2016 on behalf of Flint residents and businesses.
Julie Hurwitz and Bill Goodman, lawyers representing Mays, praised Monday’s action by the justices, saying in a statement that it “signals that the State of Michigan and all of its cronies are reaching the end of the line in their ongoing efforts to avoid being held accountable.”
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality declined comment. The plaintiffs’ attorney in the second case, as well as officials with Flint and the governor’s office, could not immediately be reached for comment.
In June 2017, six current and former state and city officials were charged criminally – including five accused of involuntary manslaughter – for their roles in the crisis, which also was linked to a Legionnaires’ disease outbreak that caused at least 12 deaths.
Refer also to:
2017 01 21: Damaging the Charter: Ernst vs Alberta Energy Regulator by Lorne Sossin, Dean Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. Comment: “It causes one to question how much both the plurality and the dissent were driven by the desired end-state of the judgment, rather than consistency in applying principles of public law.”
2018 01 25: Jessica Ernst Open Letter to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin Regarding False and Seriously Damaging Statements in Justice Rosalie Abella’s Supreme Court of Canada Ruling, Ernst v AER
More on Canada’s Supreme Court tawdry ruling on Ernst vs Encana lawsuit page.
It appears judges in Canada don’t drink water or bathe in it.
Perhaps they bathe in cake.