logo
Fed attorneys admit case for ending NYC congestion pricing has legal holes, Trump DOT memo says

Fed attorneys admit case for ending NYC congestion pricing has legal holes, Trump DOT memo says

Yahoo25-04-2025

NEW YORK — Federal attorneys admitted the Trump Transportation Department's legal theories for shutting down New York's congestion toll don't hold much water in a mysteriously filed memo that popped up on the docket of the MTA's suit against the administration Wednesday night.
Formally listed as a letter from lead attorney for the government Dominika Tarczynska to Judge Lewis Liman — who is overseeing the case in Manhattan federal court — introducing a document into evidence, what the feds posted instead was an 11-page internal memo to the Department of Transportation, dated April 11, explaining gaping holes in their case and legal strategy.
'There is considerable litigation risk in defending (U.S. DOT Secretary Sean Duffy's) February 19, 2025 decision (to attempt to revoke congestion pricing authorization) against (the MTA's) claims … that the decision was contrary to law, pretextual, procedurally arbitrary and capricious, and violated due process,' wrote three of the assistant U.S. Attorneys tasked with doing just that.
'… it is unlikely that Judge Liman or further courts of review will accept the argument that (congestion pricing) was not a statutorily authorized 'value pricing' pilot under (the relevant law),' the memo continues.
Signed by Tarczynska as well as assistant U.S. attorneys David Farber and Christine Poscablo, the memo goes on to suggest that the feds 'may, however, be able to properly terminate' congestion pricing by proposing to do so 'as a matter of changed agency priorities rather than arguing (that congestion pricing) was not statutorily authorized in the first instance.'
For nearly three months, Duffy has argued — in a series of strongly worded letters and angry tweets — that he can summarily revoke an authorization given by the Biden administration that allowed New York State to toll drivers entering Midtown or lower Manhattan on federally funded roads, and use the revenues to fund MTA transit projects.
The argument has become one of the most prominent flash points in the Trump regime's efforts to bigfoot state authorities.
But the memo released Wednesday shows that even the federal attorneys have deep doubts about whether they can convince a judge to end the toll.
In declaring the death of congestion pricing, Duffy has specifically claimed that New York' congestion toll is illegal in part because there is no un-tolled route to get into the city's congestion zone.
But that argument doesn't hold up, the attorneys wrote, providing at least two instances in which the so-called 'VPPP' — the Bush-era law that allows congestion pricing — has been authorized elsewhere in the country without a toll-free alternative.
'(W)e have not identified a provision that requires there to be a non-Interstate route to a particular location, or a requirement that that route not be tolled,' they added.
Duffy has also argued that the toll is illegal because it is designed fund a list of MTA projects rather than strictly to reduce congestion.
Again, the attorneys wrote, there are 'impediments to this argument being successful.'
'As a legal matter, there is nothing in the statute that prohibits a VPPP program from having a two-fold goal, limits how tolls are to be set, or sets forth the amount of congestion reduction that is to be achieved,' the attorneys said, adding that multiple studies signed off on by the feds had indeed found the toll reduces congestion.
Instead of relying on Duffy's arguments, the attorneys proposed attempting to terminate the toll by declaring that it 'no longer effectuates the … agency priorities' of the U.S. DOT, which they say might protect against the MTA's claims 'that they were not provided due process or that the termination (of the toll) was procedurally arbitrary and capricious.'
But that's not a sure thing, the lawyers wrote, suggesting Duffy bolster the strategy by explaining in future public statements that his agency 'has decided to change the types of VPPP projects it decides to prioritize or exclude.'
Indeed, in Duffy's most recent threat to defund New York City should the toll remain in effect, the secretary seems to have taken heed of some of the memo's recommendations.
As previously reported by the Daily News, Duffy last week set his third in a line of seemingly toothless deadlines for New York to end the toll.
In his letter to Gov. Kathy Hochul announcing the deadline, Duffy acknowledged that the relevant federal law allows tolls 'to be used for transit projects,' but said 'it is unconscionable as a matter of policy that highway users are being forced to bail out the MTA transit system.'
In a statement shared by Halee Dobbins, a spokeswoman for the federal Transportation Department, officials there accused the lawyers of an intentional leak.
'Are SDNY lawyers on this case incompetent or was this their attempt to RESIST?' read a caps-locked statement shared with The News. 'At the very least, it's legal malpractice. It's sad to see a premier legal organization continue to fall into such disgrace.'
But Nicholas Biase, the spokesman for the Manhattan federal prosecutor's office which is representing the DOT, told The News Thursday that the filing had been made in error.
'Unfortunately, an attorney-client privileged document was erroneously filed on the public docket last night,' Biase said. 'This was a completely honest error and was not intentional in any way.'
'Upon realizing the error, we immediately took steps to have the document removed,' he continued. 'We look forward to continuing to vigorously advocate in the best interest of our clients, the DOT and FHWA, in this matter.'
The memo comes as the SDNY, known for bringing major white-collar crime and terrorism cases, has seen a leadership crisis in recent months following Trump's second return to power — cycling through five U.S. attorneys since December.
Weeks after Trump was elected, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Damian Williams, who aggressively pursued public corruption during his tenure, stepped down. Trump replaced Williams' successor, Edward Kim, during his first day in office with Danielle Sassoon, who quit just two weeks later rather than obeying an order from the president's new second-in-command at the Justice Department to drop the corruption case against Mayor Adams.
Sassoon was replaced by her deputy, Matthew Podolosky. Last week, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer said he would seek to block the nomination of Trump's pick for the prestigious role, former Securities and Exchange Commission chief Jay Clayton. On Tuesday, Trump found a workaround by placing Clayton in the job in an interim capacity.
Among his first tasks in that capacity, Clayton signed off on a request Thursday that the memo be sealed and removed from the docket.
The memo had been temporarily removed from the docket Thursday evening by Liman's order, with access restricted to only the judge and the DOT's attorneys.
Liman indicated he will likely rule on the fed's motion to seal the memo next month.
_____

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge
Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge

Politico

time35 minutes ago

  • Politico

Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he plans to revert the names of seven major Army bases back to the Confederate generals for which they were originally named. 'We are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Robert E. Lee,' Trump said. 'We won a lot of battles out of those forts, it's no time to change.' Trump's announcement, during a speech to soldiers at Fort Bragg, follows Biden-administration era alterations in 2023 that changed the installation names to honor new, non-Confederate individuals. Those included changing Fort Hood to Fort Cavazos, for the Army's first four-star Hispanic general. The Army previously redesignated Fort Liberty, previously known as Fort Bragg, to its original name, but honoring Private First Class Roland L. Bragg, a World War II hero instead of the Confederate general Braxton Bragg. The service also redesignated Fort Moore, after Gen. Hal Moore and his wife Julia Compton Moore, for Fred G. Benning, who won the Distinguished Service Cross during World War I. The Army is taking the same approach for the bases tapped for renaming on Tuesday, finding award-winning soldiers with the same last names as the Confederate generals to name the bases after, according to a statement released by the service after the president's speech. The president gave no timeline for the name changes and it was not immediately clear whether the Army's bases would be renamed after Confederate generals or soldiers from different eras. One army official, granted anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak, said they were caught off guard by the rapid-fire developments, which could take months to Army did not immediately respond to POLITICO's request for comment. Though the Trump administration insisted the redesignations were in-line with laws that prevent the Pentagon from naming bases after Confederate leaders or battles, Ty Seidule, a retired Army brigadier general who was the vice chair of the Congressional Naming Commission, which is tasked with relabeling bases and U.S. military assets, said that Trump's decision went against the spirit of the new rule enacted after the George Floyd protests. 'The bottom line is he's choosing surname over service,' said Seidule, who's now a visiting professor at Hamilton College. 'It is breaking the spirit of a law that was created by the will of the American people through their elected representatives.' Seidule said that the commission, which was made up of three Republicans, one Democrat and four retired flag officers, spent 20 months seeking input from the public and got 33,000 responses to change the names of Army bases and other installations and assets named after Confederates, including several U.S. Navy ships. But he said the decision still reflected that the Trump administration 'realizes that Confederates chose treason to preserve slavery, and they are unworthy of having bases named for them in America in 2025.' On Tuesday, Trump criticized Biden at several points during his speech, which was full of asides about immigration, transgender Americans and the spending bill currently being debated in Congress. His political comments in front of hundreds of soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division led to a smattering of boos from the mostly uniformed audience when he criticized former President Joe Biden. Audience members also jeered when Trump mentioned California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whom the president clashed with over protests in California that were sparked by the Trump administration's immigration raids. Presidents normally avoid giving political speeches to military personnel. 'Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden,' Trump said at one point in his remarks. 'I don't think so.' 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again,' Trump said, claiming parts of the city are under the control of international criminal gangs. The president has ordered 4,000 California National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, though so far only about 300 guardsmen have entered the city. The Marines are positioned outside Los Angeles, where they're undergoing training on crowd control, said one defense official who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. The move to rename Army bases comes just days after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moved to relabel a Navy vessel named after gay rights activist Harvey Milk as well as other ships named after civil rights leaders and women. Seidule, the retired Army brigadier general who served on the Biden-era naming commission, said that Trump's decision creates the risk that future administrations could take turns renaming the Army's bases. 'What happens if some other administration would name something after someone that one party thinks is just absolutely beyond the pale,' said Seidule. 'I think that this could absolutely be a tennis match.' Sam Skove contributed to this report.

Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court

Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.

Non-citizen LA rioters could be deported under new House bill
Non-citizen LA rioters could be deported under new House bill

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Non-citizen LA rioters could be deported under new House bill

FIRST ON FOX: Some House Republicans are now considering whether non-citizens who are found to have participated in violent anti-law enforcement riots have a right to stay in the United States. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, is leading a bill that would make non-U.S. citizens convicted of "actual or attempted assault, battery, or use of force" against any law enforcement officer eligible for deportation. Any immigrants deported under the legislation, if enacted, would be permanently barred from the United States. "The thing about breaking the law is, there's effectively a waiving of your constitutional rights that's sort of inherent in our system, right? When you go to prison, you're losing your liberty," Crenshaw told Fox News Digital in an interview Tuesday. California Republicans Slam Newsom, Bass For Letting La Burn With Riots Amid Trump Immigration Blitz "So this is a very normal thing, and in the case of say, people who are here legally, but then committing acts of violence – in this case, we're being really specific, during a national emergency, committing assaults against police officers, and destruction of property – that should have an effect and be on the list of things that allows for revocation of your status." Read On The Fox News App Early bill text obtained by Fox News Digital shows the bill would apply to legal permanent residents, people here illegally, and beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy. It would go into effect when presidents, governors or local leaders make emergency or major disaster declarations. It comes amid continued tensions in Los Angeles, where protests against Immigrations and Customs Enforcement operations turned violent across the city this weekend. Rioters were seen burning American flags and cars stood on the street in flames, while police used pepper spray and rubber bullets on crowds outside federal buildings. President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard despite the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and ordered 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles as well. Those Marines will be training in Seal Beach for a few more days before deployment, a U.S. defense official told Fox News. Democrats have accused the Trump administration of escalating violence in Los Angeles, while Republicans argue that federal action is necessary based on the state's handling of the situation. Crenshaw said his legislation would help the administration restore order during such times. "What it would do is, it would give the administration the option to say, yeah we've rounded all these people up, half of them are U.S. citizens, okay, you're going to jail for rioting. Maybe another quarter are illegals, well that's easy you can deport them," he said. "But what about the other quarter? You know, that might be…a number of legal aliens here rioting against America for enforcing our immigration laws. In our minds, you've violated that sort of social contract with the United States at that point." California Lt. Governor Says Los Angeles Riots Are 'Generated By Donald Trump' Crenshaw said he spoke with the White House and that officials there were "excited" about the bill. The White House said it would not get in front of the president on legislative matters when reached for comment by Fox News Digital. Currently, legal U.S. residents, including green card holders, can have their status revoked by an immigration judge if they are found guilty of certain crimes or are found to have fraudulently misrepresented themselves in their application for residence. Crimes that would make legal U.S. visa holders and green card holders eligible for deportation currently include murder, drug trafficking and article source: Non-citizen LA rioters could be deported under new House bill

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store