Yes, of course, but he interprets the arguments and evidence presented to them.
Here he chooses to interpret what they say as demanding the recognition of a new constitutional right to safe water and to correct information. It is not at all clear that that's a good choice.
He could equally well interpret the situation by analogy: the government deliberately tricked people into drinking unsafe water, and people were, depending on whether there is evidence of poisoning from the lead, either provably or not provably harmed.
Thus it is open to him to interpret their question as one that is not so focused on novel constitutional rights.
Again, the plaintiffs choose the argument. They choose to use a statute, 42 U.S. Code § 1983, that starts:
> Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law [...]
and what they said they had been deprived of is their substantive due process rights.
The plaintiffs brought a Constitutional argument. The court ruled on the Constitutional argument.
When you file a lawsuit you basically say two things:
1. Defendant(s) did this things which harmed me.
2. This violates these specific laws and you list those laws and explain how the things from #1 violate them.
The trial court determines which of the things in #1 that you allege are true. Then, if they determine that at least some of them are true, they figure out which of the specific laws from #2 were violated.
The losing party can appeal. The appellate court takes as given whichever of the things in #1 that the trial court found to be true, and just reviews the trial court's application of the laws.
It is possible that the trial court will notice (and it they don't the defendant will bring it to their attention) that even if everything you claim in #1 is true, it would not violate any of the laws you listed in #2. The trial court will them dismiss the case unless you file an amendment that fixes the problem. The dismissal will be "without prejudice" which means you can later file again with a hopefully better drafted complaint.
The important thing here is you don't just go to courts saying "These people hurt me in this way, please punish them". You have to be specific, saying "These people broke these specific laws. Here are the things they did that broke those laws".
In this case plaintiffs said those laws were ones that had not before been interpreted as applying to their situation. The lower courts dismissed the case. The appellate court decided that those laws indeed do not apply, so dismissed the case.
They are not saying plaintiffs were not injured. Plaintiffs are free to continue legal action--they just have to sue using laws that do apply to their situation.
Yes, but the court in this case, is taking a particular interpretation that overstates the novelty of the rights claim.
The people bringing the lawsuit are not in fact asserting a right to clean water, they are asserting a right to not be deliberately poisoned by deception.
Here he chooses to interpret what they say as demanding the recognition of a new constitutional right to safe water and to correct information. It is not at all clear that that's a good choice.
He could equally well interpret the situation by analogy: the government deliberately tricked people into drinking unsafe water, and people were, depending on whether there is evidence of poisoning from the lead, either provably or not provably harmed.
Thus it is open to him to interpret their question as one that is not so focused on novel constitutional rights.