Case Law Details
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v United States
Project Description:
The Tamiami Trail Modifications Project involves the relocation of a one-mile portion of the Tamiami Trail, a highway that is also known as U.S. Highway 41, from its current location outside Everglades National Park (the Park) in southern Florida to a location within the Park. Members of the Miccosukee Tribe have use and occupancy rights in certain areas of the Park, but not in the area to be used by the project. In June 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a Limited Reevaluation Report and Environmental Assessment (LRREA) for the project, which included a finding of no significant impact. The LRREA noted that in order to complete the project, portions of the Park would need to be conveyed from the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to the Florida Department of Transportation. To accomplish this, DOI requested the assistance of FHWA pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 317, which gives FHWA the authority to act as a land transfer agent. FHWA concluded that, because the project is an environmental restoration project, not a transportation project, FHWA’s assistance in the land transfer would not trigger the applicability of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act.
1:08-cv-21703
1:08-cv-21703
U.S. District Court – Florida
08/07/2008
Tamiami Trail Modifications Project
Highway
Case Summary
The Miccosukee Tribe filed suit against the United States and U.S. DOT alleging violations of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act for failure to complete a Section 4(f) evaluation for the project. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, arguing that the plaintiff’s lacked standing to bring suit. On August 7, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Key Holdings
Litigation Procedure
Preliminary Injunction. The District Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiff had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim. The court reasoned that the fact that the project involved changes to a highway and the construction of a highway bridge “d[id] not establish a substantial likelihood that the DOT’s finding that the [project] constitutes an environmental restoration project – not a transportation project – within the meaning of Section 4(f) was arbitrary and capricious.”
Section 4(f)
Applicability of Section 4(f) – Definition of Transportation Project”. In denying the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the District Court determined that U.S. DOT did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in determining that the project did not constitute a transportation project subject to Section 4(f). The court reasoned that the project “arises out of a Congressional mandate… [to] take steps to improve water deliveries into the Park and to restore the natural hydrological conditions within the Park” and that “[t]he main goal of the [project] is to improve water flows in the Everglades, not to improve transportation.” The court also noted that “the D.C. Circuit has stated that Section 4(f) is primarily aimed at the construction of new highways and other transportation facilities or major changes to such transportation facilities,” not “relatively minor changes in the operational characteristics of an established transportation facility.”
File Attachment
Download the decision