Shari Guertin v. Michigan
924 F.3d 309 (2019)
Rule of Law:
Allegations that public officials acted with deliberate indifference or recklessness in causing a public water supply to be poisoned are sufficient to state a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process right to bodily integrity. This right can be considered clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, even without a factually identical precedent, if the alleged conduct is so egregious that any reasonable official would have known it was unconstitutional.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs, residents of Flint, Michigan, alleged that local officials made the decision to switch the city's water source to the Flint River.
- The officials allegedly forced the transition to the Flint River water before the city's treatment plant was properly prepared.
- The new water source, which was not treated with proper corrosion controls, caused lead from aging pipes to leach into the drinking water.
- Residents were exposed to lead-contaminated water, leading to significant health issues.
- Officials allegedly made false and misleading public statements that the Flint water was safe to drink.
- The officials' decisions were allegedly made despite being aware of their own limitations, as they relied on outside engineering firms for guidance.
- Darnell Earley, an emergency manager, allegedly pushed an "aggressive deadline" for the water source switch.
Procedural Posture:
- Flint residents (Plaintiffs) sued various public officials (Defendants) in U.S. District Court, alleging constitutional violations.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting the defense of qualified immunity.
- The U.S. District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- The defendants (Appellants) filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, allowing the case to proceed to discovery.
- The defendants-appellants petitioned for a rehearing en banc, asking the full court of the Sixth Circuit to reconsider the panel's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does alleged conduct by public officials, involving the intentional or reckless poisoning of a municipal water supply, violate a clearly established substantive due process right to bodily integrity, thereby precluding dismissal on qualified immunity grounds at the pleading stage?
Opinions:
Concurring - Judge Gibbons
Yes, the case should proceed to discovery. At the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss stage, the court's only role is to determine whether the complaint's allegations plausibly state a claim for relief. The plaintiffs have met this standard by pleading plausible allegations that, if proven true, would constitute a constitutional violation. It is premature and constitutes judicial overreach for the court to determine the applicable legal standard or rule on the ultimate facts before discovery has taken place. The proper course is to allow the district court to develop a factual record.
Concurring - Judge Sutton
Yes, the case must proceed to discovery because the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged an intentional or reckless effort to poison Flint's water supply. While merely negligent conduct would not violate substantive due process, allegations of intentional poisoning do. At the pleading stage, the court must give the plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt and allow them to use discovery to support their claims. However, courts must proceed with caution in this area of law, as substantive due process claims are nebulous and qualified immunity provides strong protection to public officials. The egregiousness of the alleged intent—intentionally poisoning citizens—may lower the necessity for a factually identical precedent to overcome the 'clearly established' prong of qualified immunity.
Dissenting - Judge Kethledge
No, the officials are entitled to qualified immunity and the case should be dismissed. The substantive due process doctrine is too vague to provide the clear notice required to overcome qualified immunity. The 'right to bodily integrity' established in prior cases involved intentional, direct, and forcible invasions of a person's body, such as stomach-pumping or forced injections. The officials' conduct here, which plaintiffs themselves frame as a 'failure to protect from a foreseeable risk,' sounds in negligence, not intentional harm. By applying the right to bodily integrity to this negligent conduct, the court improperly expands a nebulous constitutional doctrine at a high level of generality, which is precisely what the Supreme Court has warned against.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for its treatment of qualified immunity in the context of a novel, large-scale public health crisis. It suggests that for substantive due process claims, truly egregious and conscience-shocking allegations of intentional or reckless harm can overcome qualified immunity even without a closely analogous precedent. The concurrences signal a willingness to allow such cases to proceed to discovery, potentially making it harder for officials to secure early dismissal in cases involving extreme facts. The decision underscores the tension between the judiciary's caution in expanding substantive due process and the need to provide a remedy for shocking governmental misconduct.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Shari Guertin v. Michigan (2019)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"