Carthan v. Snyder (In re Flint Water Cases)

Rule of Law:

Government officials who act with deliberate indifference to a known, substantial risk of serious harm, leading to citizens' involuntary ingestion of life-threatening substances through a public water supply, violate the citizens' fundamental right to bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Facts:

• For decades, the City of Flint received its municipal water from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD).
• In 2013, state and city officials, including Governor Rick Snyder, decided to switch Flint's water source to the Flint River as an interim measure to save money before joining a new water authority, despite knowing the river water was highly corrosive and required significant, costly upgrades to the Flint Water Treatment Plant (FWTP).
• On April 25, 2014, the City of Flint switched its water supply to the Flint River without implementing required corrosion control treatments.
• Immediately following the switch, residents began complaining about the water's smell, taste, and color, and reported health issues such as rashes and hair loss.
• In October 2014, General Motors stopped using Flint River water at its engine plant because it was corroding car parts. During this period, state officials became aware of a Legionnaires' disease outbreak in Flint and elevated TTHM levels in the water.
• Top state officials, including Governor Snyder's legal counsel and chief of staff, received internal warnings that the situation was "downright scary" and that residents' concerns about lead contamination were being "blown off."
• Despite possessing this knowledge, officials publicly denied the water was unsafe, issued statements assuring residents the water met all safety standards, and allegedly manipulated water test results to conceal high lead levels.
• On October 16, 2015, more than a year after the switch and only after independent studies confirmed widespread lead poisoning, Governor Snyder ordered the city to reconnect to the DWSD water supply.

Procedural Posture:

• Plaintiffs, residents and property owners of Flint, filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against various government officials and private entities.
• The case was consolidated with eight other Flint water-related class action complaints.
• Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, to which defendants filed motions to dismiss.
• The District Court issued an opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss.
• Several defendants appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, while others filed motions for reconsideration with the District Court.
• Before the District Court ruled on the reconsideration motions, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a fourth amended complaint.
• To manage the litigation consistently, the District Court vacated its prior ruling on the motions to dismiss so it could consider the new complaint. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the court's jurisdiction to do so.
• The District Court is now issuing an omnibus opinion on both the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint and the defendants' motions to dismiss that complaint.