In a dramatic twist, city officials from Benton Harbor, Michigan, are making a fervent plea to the Sixth Circuit, urging the court to grant them qualified immunity in a high-stakes class action. This legal saga revolves around allegations that these officials intentionally misled the public regarding the safety of the city’s drinking water.
michigan water claimes 6th Circ : Qualified Immunity Plea
In a compelling appellant brief filed on December 27, Mayor Marcus Muhammad and the former superintendent of the municipal water plant, Michael O’Malley, argue vehemently that the trial court erred in finding constitutional rights violations in the class-action complaint. Their defense centers on the assertion that the allegations lack specificity, relying on vague and conclusory statements without pinpointing misleading statements.
Constitutional Quandary
Muhammad and O’Malley contend that accusations of Mayor Muhammad failing to respond to a plaintiff can’t be deemed a constitutional violation, as the due process clause pertains to government actions, not inactions. They passionately argue that even if their actions were constitutional violations, these were not “conscience-shocking” nor established as violations.
michigan water claimes 6th Circ : Questioning the Allegations
The crux of their defense challenges the residents’ claims, blaming municipal leadership for lapses in oversight and inadequate responses to lead contamination from 2018 to 2020. The residents argue that Mayor Muhammad wasn’t transparent about the issue, exacerbating the crisis by misleading the public about water safety.
Environmental Guidance
Muhammad and O’Malley assert that even if O’Malley’s statement about water safety after the first flush was false, it aligns with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency instructions. They argue that following federal guidance cannot be deemed “constitutionally repugnant.”
Last Defenders Standing
Notably, Muhammad and O’Malley are the sole defendants remaining in the suit, after the dismissal of all other defendants by U.S. District Judge Hala Y. Jarbou. The judge, while denying qualified immunity, opted to stay the litigation pending the appeal to the Sixth Circuit.
michigan water claimes 6th Circ : Crisis Management Defense
The duo counters the court’s notion that their actions were culpable by highlighting their immediate actions upon discovering elevated lead levels. They argue that unlike the Flint, Michigan, water crisis, they did not cause the problem but actively informed the public and initiated remedial measures.
Policy Points of Contention
The defense vehemently challenges the court’s finding that official policy led to the alleged violations. Muhammad and O’Malley assert that the complaint lacks identification of any such policy and refute the inference that Muhammad’s role as an “official policymaker” automatically makes his statements official policy.
michigan water claimes 6th Circ : Legal Tug-of-War
Mark P. Chalos of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, representing the residents, claims that the “government failed the citizens of Benton Harbor.” The legal battle intensifies as the defendants, represented by Thomas J. Rheaume Jr. and Alexandra C. Markel of Bodman PLC, await the Sixth Circuit’s crucial decision.
