Your morning update from Salon.

Crash Course subscribers can join the conversation. Click the speech bubble to leave a comment. Tap the heart to leave a like.

Are you a Salon Premium member? Join us on Wednesday, October 7, at 5 p.m. Eastern, for a members-only Salon Live focused on the upcoming midterm elections. Will we see a blue wave? How will the progressive Democratic nominees fare against Republicans? And what can it all possibly mean for the 2028 presidential election? Join Salon’s veteran politics editors, Andrew O’Hehir and Jason Kyle Howard, for a live and lively conversation about the races they’re keeping an eye on this November. Salon Live events are a benefit of your Salon Premium Membership. Register for Salon Live here. (Not a Premium Member yet? Join here.)

We don’t always talk about it, but resentment towards South Asian Americans has reached levels on par with anti-Arab hate 25 years ago. Read the story.

A federal court says the government can poison and lie to you

A week ago, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit against the city of Jackson, Mississippi, which alleged that the city knowingly let residents drink lead-contaminated water, violating their right to bodily integrity and accurate information from the government. Donald Trump-appointed judge Kurt Engelhardt thumbed his nose at that, ruling “The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing,” and adding, “These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.”

A lot has happened in the past week — from assaults on voting rights to a lot of arguing about different maps to the president apparently offering $5,000 bribes to voters — but this ruling should get a lot more attention, especially Engelhardt’s bit about there being no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.”

Is that really where we’re at as a society? The government can let you be poisoned and lie about it and we’re just supposed to suck it up? This issue is deeply related to the newly released trove of documents that indicate that New Yorkers were “misled” — essentially lied to — about air quality risks following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The 170,000 documents, released by Mayor Zohran Mamdani ahead of the tragedy’s 25th anniversary, details how the public was repeatedly reassured that the air near the collapsed towers was safe. But that wasn’t the case, and those exposed are now at elevated risks of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, not to mention cancer.

“We were dying with every breath we took down there. What we learned is that the city knew it,” Lt. James Brosi, president of New York City’s Uniformed Fire Officers Association, told CNN. This is even more alarming in light of reporting this week from the Washington Post that “The number of 9/11 survivors who are receiving aid for cancer has roughly tripled over the last five years.”

The ruins at Ground Zero were certainly a public health crisis but, according to Engelhardt, it doesn’t matter that the Environmental Protection Agency told New Yorkers not to worry and breathe it all in. Makes you wonder what the “protection” part of their agency is actually about. The bottom line is this: It’s absurd that we are even having this discussion in 2026. Ideally, we should be debating whether or not internet access or education are human rights. I’m more on the fence about that than healthcare or free speech, which are undeniable human rights in my opinion. But arguing about a constitutional right to clean air and water — something as far down on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as it gets — is just bonkers. 

But that isn’t true everywhere. As Mother Jones reports, “in at least nine US states, and in more than a dozen other countries, clean drinking water is in fact a protected right. In countries including Uruguay and South Africa, a right to clean water is enshrined in the constitution. New York’s state constitution, as of a 2021 amendment, states that ‘each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.’ So too in Massachusetts, where ‘the right to clean air and water’ has been constitutionally protected since 1972.” Maybe that sucks for Mississippi, but let’s not overlook the institutional-racism aspect of this either. Again from Mother Jones: “Jackson is more than 80 percent Black and has a poverty rate that is more than double the national average.” 

Engelhardt may be technically correct that there’s no explicit law on the books about bodily integrity, but he’s wrong in a much broader sense. If government doesn’t have a responsibility to provide safe access to air and water — and doesn’t even have to tell the truth about it — then what is even the point of the government? People in judicial positions like Engelhardt seem unaware that chipping away at the very foundations of functional society like this threatens to make it unable to function at all. Furthermore, people won’t tolerate being poisoned or lied to like this forever and the backlash could be severe. Maybe it’s difficult for the government to tell the truth and enforce some basic standards of public health (it really shouldn’t be!) but the alternative is to ensure its own destruction.

What do you think? Should clean water and air be a constitutional right? Leave a comment, send me a note with your thoughts at [email protected] or say hello on Bluesky.

Support our progressive journalism. Become a Premium member today.

You've worked hard to fund your portfolio — your investment strategy should work just as hard to maximize your after-tax returns.

On September 17, join Range's CFPs and CPAs live for the practical moves that put more of your returns back in your pocket.

What we'll cover:

Range is all-in-one AI wealth management — tax, investments, retirement, and estate in one place. Bring your questions for the live Q&A. Free to attend, and seats are limited.

Reserve your spot today

^{This webinar is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy, hold, or sell any security. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Range defines "high earners" as households with income over $300k.}