Marvin v. Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham

On November 12, 2025, plaintiff Marvin, a tenant in Birmingham, Alabama, filed a federal lawsuit against the Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham and its officials. The dispute arose after the Board terminated water service to Marvin's residence without prior notice because of an unpaid bill owed by the property owner, not the tenant. Marvin alleged that the abrupt shutoff deprived him of a constitutionally protected property interest in continued utility service, violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages, arguing that the Board acted under color of state law and that a pre-termination hearing was required.

The district court dismissed the action, holding that the Water Works Board's decision to discontinue service was not fairly attributable to the state and therefore did not amount to state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In 2026, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, relying on precedent that routine utility billing and termination decisions by a public water board lack the compulsion or encouragement by the state necessary to convert them into constitutional violations.

Whether a municipally owned water utility's termination of service to a tenant for a landlord's delinquency constitutes state action triggering procedural due process protections, and whether a pre-shutoff notice and hearing are constitutionally required.

The case highlighted the vulnerability of tenants facing loss of essential water service due to landlord nonpayment. While the courts ruled against the tenant, the litigation sparked public debate over utility shutoff policies and prompted several Alabama municipalities to consider ordinances requiring advance notice to occupants and grace periods before disconnection, regardless of billing responsibility.