MTA defies feds' fourth deadline to kill congestion pricing, calls Duffy threats a ‘sham'
Fourth time's a 'sham.'
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority defied the feds' fourth deadline to kill congestion pricing — while ripping Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy's repeated threats as a 'sham.'
In a pair of letters sent to Duffy on Wednesday, the MTA and the state Department of Transportation said that his deadlines and letters threatening to yank federal funding were irrelevant — since the battle over the tolling program is playing out in court.
The May 21 time limit for the MTA to stop collecting the $9 tolls on drivers entering Manhattan below 60th Street was ordered in a letter Duffy sent to Gov. Kathy Hochul last month — when his third deadline came and went.
The April 21 letter gave Hochul another 30 days to prove to him why the US Department of Transportation shouldn't 'remedy New York's non-compliance' by yanking untold amounts of federal transit funding.
But state agencies argued in the recent filings that the whiplash back-and-forth was 'procedurally improper.'
The MTA attorneys argued there wasn't even a point in responding to Duffy's threat, since according to the transportation secretary's original Feb. 19 letter announcing he was pulling federal approval for the first-in-the-nation program, he has already made up his mind.
That letter 'already purported to 'terminate'' congestion pricing, wrote attorney Roberta Kaplan, 'without any prior notice or opportunity to be heard as required by the relevant regulations.'
'It is thus obvious that USDOT's decision has already been made, and that this is an 'opportunity to be heard' in name only,' Kaplan argued.
'Secretary Duffy did not afford the Project Sponsors any notice or due process before that alleged termination, and he cannot cure that failure now through a sham exchange of letters,' Kaplan wrote.
The state DOT letter goes further, and hints that Duffy's lawyers may be trying to form a new legal argument to kill the toll — citing Duffy's ask last month that Hochul address 'policy concerns' mentioned in his Feb. 19 missive.
'The Secretary's February 19 letter did not state that those policy concerns were an independent basis for his decision,' state Assistant Attorney General Andrew Frank wrote, 'and as a legal matter they cannot be a basis for termination.'
Kaplan added that 'those supposed policy concerns' were mere 'after-the-fact rationalizations to justify the Secretary's illegal attempt to end the Program.'
Both comments hint at the concerns expressed in an internal Department of Justice memo erroneously filed to the public docket on behalf of the US DOT by since-removed federal attorneys.
The memo expressed doubts over Duffy's legal reasoning behind his original letter, casting his strategy as 'very unlikely' to succeed, and encouraged a move towards one focused on shifting priorities and policies.
The latest filing by the feds in the case is a memo opposing the MTA's request for a preliminary injunction asking the judge to bar Duffy from making good on his threat to pull funding in retaliation for the agency not stopping the tolls.
The memo notes that the US DOT's 'decision making process is still unfolding.'
A federal DOT spokesperson told The Post that 'we will be reviewing New York's response to determine if they remain in compliance.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
31 minutes ago
- CNBC
FAA shrinks area where helicopters are allowed near Reagan airport
The Federal Aviation Administration said on Thursday it is shrinking the area around Reagan Washington National Airport where helicopters are allowed to operate. In March, the FAA imposed permanent restrictions on non-essential helicopter operations around Reagan to eliminate helicopter and passenger jet mixed traffic, including permanently closing one key route. The changes came after the National Transportation Safety Board made two urgent safety recommendations following the January 29 mid-air collision of an American Airlines regional jet and an Army helicopter that killed 67 people. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on Wednesday he supports an independent audit into airspace operations and safety oversight in the Washington, D.C., region following that fatal crash. Two dozen U.S. senators have asked the inspector generals for the Pentagon and USDOT to open audits in response to the collision and the ongoing coordination issues between the Army and air traffic control at Reagan, following the collision and a serious close call on May 1. U.S. Senator Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican, said the Army will curtail VIP military helicopter flights around the Pentagon after safety concerns were raised following the fatal collision. Moran said the Army will limit training missions near Reagan Washington National Airport and limit the number of senior military and defense officials who can use helicopters for transport. The FAA in early May barred the Army from training or priority transport flights around the Pentagon after the May 1 close call that forced two civilian planes to abort landings. The FAA is currently negotiating a memorandum with the Army to govern future military flights near commercial planes around Reagan, the FAA's acting administrator, Chris Rocheleau, told reporters. Moran said that before January 29, the Army was ferrying three-star generals and above, but that now only the defense secretary and a limited number of other senior officials will be eligible when the Army resumes flights.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Chicago mayor says Trump's America looks like Confederacy won, suggests ICE are 'terrorists'
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Trump attends bill signing ceremony at the White House
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
L.A. Immigration Crackdown Sparks Concerns About Possible Martial Law
TOPSHOT - Demonstrators holding signs and flags face California National Guard members standing ... More guard outside the Federal Building as they protest in response to federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, on June 9, 2025. US President Donald Trump on June 9 ordered active-duty Marines into Los Angeles, vowing those protesting immigration arrests would be "hit harder" than ever. Protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, broke out on June 6, triggered by immigration raids that resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. (Photo by Apu GOMES / AFP) (Photo by APU GOMES/AFP via Getty Images) In recent weeks, the Los Angeles immigration crackdown has become the epicentre of a dangerous national experiment—one in which immigration enforcement is serving as the pretext for something far more ominous: a steady descent into possible martial law. The deployment of U.S. military forces into California without the governor's consent, the violent sweep of immigration raids, and the weaponization of emergency powers all signal that the constitutional order is under siege. President Donald Trump's decision to send 4,000 National Guard troops and Marines into California was met with outrage from state leaders and legal experts alike. California Governor Gavin Newsom has called the action 'an illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional act,' and the state has filed suit against the federal government, citing violations of the U.S. Federal Code, which prohibit federalizing state militias except in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when a state cannot enforce its own laws. None of those conditions apply in this case. Yet the justification offered by the administration—that Los Angeles was on the brink of collapse due to immigrant protests—is as false and inflammatory as was demonstrated on a recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel, which showed footage of quiet Los Angeles streets. Following a series of ICE raids that detained over 100 people, protests erupted across the city. While the Los Angeles Police Department stated that the demonstrations were largely peaceful, federal officials framed them as acts of rebellion. In televised comments, President Trump, without evidence, declared that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without military intervention. However, some legal scholars point out that such claims are disturbingly reminiscent of how autocrats have historically manufactured crises to seize power. For instance, in comments made recently by Yale historian Timothy Snyder, he warned, 'Be wary of paramilitaries. When the men with guns claim to be against the system, the system is under threat.' These warning signs are increasing. Earlier this year, President Trump re-declared a national emergency at the southern border, significantly intensifying deportation efforts, particularly in sanctuary jurisdictions. His Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, asserts that these efforts are crucial to national security. However, critics contend that the raids are politically motivated, intended to incite chaos and test the boundaries of presidential authority. This is not mere conjecture. There have been calls to arrest Governor Newsom for defying the troop deployment—an idea that would equate to criminalizing political opposition. The implications are chilling. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans are racing to pass what Trump has dubbed his 'big, beautiful bill,' a sprawling legislative package that, among other things, includes over $46 billion for the border wall and ICE funding. The administration is leveraging the unrest in Los Angeles to push hesitant GOP senators to fall in line. The proposed bill also imposes a $1,000 asylum application fee—an unprecedented barrier to legal refuge—and earmarks billions more for new Border Patrol and customs agents. These aren't merely policy choices; they are tools of exclusion and intimidation. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a leading voice for the legislation, is actively urging his colleagues to use the Los Angeles protests as proof of why ICE and the border crackdown require even more support. Beyond Capitol Hill, the cultural symbolism of this shift is equally revealing. Trump has announced a massive military parade in Washington, D.C., timed to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary—and his own birthday. With tanks, howitzers, and cruise missile launchers on display, the spectacle is designed to evoke strength. But it also mirrors the authoritarian aesthetics of regimes like Russia and North Korea. The question is, where is this all heading? During his first term, Trump was dissuaded from invoking the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests only after senior military officials objected. This time, with loyalists appointed to key positions, those checks seem to be absent. Historically, there exists a dangerous precedent for all this. In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to suspend civil liberties and consolidate power. Legal analysts are increasingly drawing comparisons between that moment and today's ongoing use of emergency powers in the name of immigration control. 'If you saw all this in any other country — soldiers sent to crush dissent, union leaders arrested, opposition politicians threatened — it would be clear that autocracy had arrived,' said constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. Even tech magnates are playing a role. Elon Musk, who now owns X (formerly Twitter), has eliminated most content moderation, amplifying polarizing rhetoric and misinformation. His platform has become a megaphone for conspiracy theories that portray immigrants as invaders and critics as traitors. Beneath all these disturbing developments in the crackdown on immigrants lies a core question: Is the United States still a democracy governed by civilian law, or is it becoming a militarized state ruled by executive whim? The courts may still provide a line of defense. California's lawsuit regarding the unauthorized deployment of federal troops will test the judiciary's willingness to uphold the Constitution. However, history teaches us that legal battles alone cannot protect democracy when institutions are co-opted or eroded. What is unfolding is more than a dispute over immigration policy; it is a stress test of America's democratic fabric. The use of immigration raids to justify military actions, the demonization of peaceful protests, and the consolidation of emergency powers—these are not isolated events. They form a pattern. While Americans seem divided on the issue of military use in the Los Angeles immigration crackdown, with half in favour and the other half, particularly Californians, opposed, June 14th, 2025, the 'No Kings National Day of Action,' promises to be a pivotal day for America as immigration protests, which have spread to other cities, will likely reach their peak on that day. While this unfolds, Trump will head to Canada to attend the G-7 meeting while keeping a watchful eye on events back home. Meanwhile, the fate of the Republic may hinge not on whether Trump builds a wall, but on whether Americans permit him to dismantle the walls of constitutional restraint in the name of constructing it.
