7 ms·

If a city chooses to operate a water system, that’s still subject to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment constrains state and local government a

If a city chooses to operate a water system, that’s still subject to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment constrains state and local government action. And the Preamble's "general Welfare" is relevant interpretive context. At the Founding, that meant the safety, prosperity, happiness, and well being of the political community. So the question isn't whether the Constitution requires cities to provide water, but whether a city that allegedly poisons people through the water system it operates can violate constitutionally protected interests in life, liberty, or bodily integrity.

pdonis 9d ago
The city is not a State. The Fourteenth Amendment says that States shall not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens. As the court's opinion points out (and as others have pointed out in this thread), there are plenty of other legal remedies that can be sought against a city government that allegedly poisons its people through its water system, including voting them out of office and bringing tort claims against them.
- cocacola1 9d ago
  A city is a state actor for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. The Supreme Court has applied the Fourteenth Amendment to municipal action since at least Yick Wo, and municipalities can be sued under §1983 for constitutional violations caused by official policy. And "you can vote them out or sue in tort" doesn't answer the constitutional question. The availability of other remedies does not make an otherwise unconstitutional government action constitutional. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment does considerably more than prohibit abridging privileges or immunities. It expressly prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process and from denying equal protection.
  - pdonis 5d ago
    > The Supreme Court has applied the Fourteenth Amendment to municipal action since at least Yick Wo That case was about a city ordinance (true, a city ordinance, not a State law that the city was enforcing, so that much is a fair point) that was inequitably enforced (non-Chinese got permits, Chinese didn't, with no other material facts being different). It was not the city providing a service itself. > It expressly prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process This refers to civil suits or criminal prosecutions, not the government providing services.

pdonis 9d ago

The city is not a State. The Fourteenth Amendment says that States shall not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens. As the court's opinion points out (and as others have pointed out in this thread), there are plenty of other legal remedies that can be sought against a city government that allegedly poisons its people through its water system, including voting them out of office and bringing tort claims against them.

cocacola1 9d ago
A city is a state actor for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. The Supreme Court has applied the Fourteenth Amendment to municipal action since at least Yick Wo, and municipalities can be sued under §1983 for constitutional violations caused by official policy. And "you can vote them out or sue in tort" doesn't answer the constitutional question. The availability of other remedies does not make an otherwise unconstitutional government action constitutional. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment does considerably more than prohibit abridging privileges or immunities. It expressly prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process and from denying equal protection.
- pdonis 5d ago
  > The Supreme Court has applied the Fourteenth Amendment to municipal action since at least Yick Wo That case was about a city ordinance (true, a city ordinance, not a State law that the city was enforcing, so that much is a fair point) that was inequitably enforced (non-Chinese got permits, Chinese didn't, with no other material facts being different). It was not the city providing a service itself. > It expressly prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process This refers to civil suits or criminal prosecutions, not the government providing services.