Appeals Court Ruling Along With Ohio House Bill 126 Create Total Legal Shield for Data Center Community Damage

BY JEFF SKINNER

STATEWIDE - In a sweeping decision that legal experts warn could dismantle local government accountability over public health, a federal appeals court has ruled that citizens have no constitutional right to be free from contaminated drinking water or to receive truthful information from public officials during a utility crisis.

The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a major civil rights lawsuit brought by residents of Jackson, Mississippi. For years, Jackson residents were exposed to toxic levels of lead, E. coli, and other bacterial contaminants after city officials abruptly switched water sources to cut costs. Despite knowing the water was dangerous, officials repeatedly assured the public it was safe to drink.

Writing for the 10-judge majority, Circuit Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt stated that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause cannot provide redress for the residents' physical injuries.

"The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing," Engelhardt wrote, suggesting instead that harmed citizens look to traditional tort law or simply "elect representatives who will better manage the public-water system."

In a sharp dissent joined by four colleagues, Circuit Judge Haynes argued that the majority ignored decades of legal protections surrounding bodily integrity. Haynes compared the local government’s deceptive behavior to "subjecting nonconsenting individuals to foreign substances with no known therapeutic value," noting that several children in the lawsuit have already been diagnosed with chronic lead poisoning.

The court also entirely omitted any ruling on the "state-created danger" doctrine—a legal framework accepted by ten other federal circuits that holds governments liable if they affirmatively create or worsen a hazard to citizens.

While the Sterling ruling technically applies to the Fifth Circuit, environmental attorneys warn its conservative legal logic creates a roadmap for municipalities across the country to bypass public safety checks without fearing federal constitutional liability.

The precedent lands at a highly volatile moment for Ohio, where major tech developers are rapidly constructing massive data centers. Municipalities throughout central and northeast Ohio—including New Albany, Hilliard, and Dublin—have rolled out the red carpet for these facilities, often fast-tracking zoning and utility agreements.

Beyond their staggering electricity demands, data centers require millions of gallons of water daily for industrial cooling systems. This water is later discharged back into municipal systems as high-volume wastewater. Environmental engineers warn this industrial effluent is frequently laced with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs)—commonly known as "forever chemicals"—used in cooling machinery and equipment manufacturing, alongside heavy chemical treatments meant to prevent biological growth in the data center cooling loops.

The federal court’s hands-off approach aligns closely with recent legislative efforts in Columbus to shield tech developers from local legal challenges. The Ohio Legislature has pushed forward House Bill 126, officially titled the Prohibit Certain Public Nuisance Actions bill, which would alter Section 2307.801 of the Revised Code. The legislation effectively bars local governments and municipalities from bringing public nuisance lawsuits against data center operators over wide-ranging community damage, such as the rapid draining of local aquifers, public utility strain, or widespread water supply contamination. Critics argue that by restricting municipal legal remedies strictly to direct physical property damage, the statehouse is preemptively stripping local communities of their primary tool to combat the long-term environmental and ecological fallout of hyper-scale tech development. In short, an appeals court has just created precedent that citizens have no recourse against threats to their life through either federal, or in the case of Ohio, civil law and your local government is fully allowed to lie to you about it.

Most municipal water treatment facilities in Ohio are fundamentally unequipped to filter out PFAs, microplastics, or specialized industrial chemical compounds. For instance, current drinking water regulations across various Ohio municipalities historically monitor standard contaminants like nitrates, lead, and copper, but lack the infrastructure or legal mandates to treat heavy, concentrated industrial wastewater dumps before they cycle back into local rivers or aquifers.

If local governments continue to prioritize developer timelines over upgrading filtration infrastructure, public health advocates predict severe long-term consequences. Broad medical consensus links sustained PFA exposure to a wide array of devastating downstream health impacts, including testicular, kidney, and thyroid cancers, severe liver damage and elevated cholesterol, pregnancy-induced hypertension and low birth weight in newborns and immune system suppression in children.

By declaring that government-induced environmental contamination is merely a matter for "public debate" rather than a violation of fundamental rights, the federal judiciary has effectively signaled to local officials that they can breach their oaths of office with near-total immunity from civil rights lawsuits. For communities downstream of Ohio's expanding tech corridors, the ruling means the fight for safe drinking water will no longer find a haven in federal court.