Case Law Details
Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta
Project Description:
The Pellissippi Parkway Extension Project involves a 4.5-mile extension of the Pellissippi Parkway in Blount County, Tennessee. The project entails the construction of a four-lane limited access highway, which requires the acquisition of 155 acres of new right-of-way land. As a four-lane highway on new location, the project is considered a “Class I” project – a class of projects for an EIS is “normally required” under FHWA regulations. In October 2001, FHWA issued an EA for the project. In April 2002, FHWA issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), allowing the project to move forward. The FONSI did not specifically address the Class I status of the project in determining that an EIS was not required.
375 F.3d 412
375 F.3d 412
U.S. Court of Appeals – 6th Circuit
07/07/2004
Pellissippi Parkway Extension Project
Highway
Case Summary
In June 2002, the Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension filed suit against U.S. DOT, FHWA, and TDOT alleging that the FONSI issued by FHWA for the project violated NEPA by failing to explain why an EIS was not required. During the litigation, TDOT informed that court that it was considering proceeding with the project without federal funds. In July 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee entered preliminary injunction, preventing further work on the project. FHWA then withdrew the FONSI and sought a voluntary remand to allow the agency to reconsider its decision. The District Court denied FHWA’s motion for voluntary remand, based in part on its concern that TDOT would seek to proceed without federal funds and without further NEPA review. FHWA appealed the District Court’s denial of its motion for voluntary remand. In July 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the District Court’s denial of FHWA’s motion for voluntary remand was abuse of discretion. In August 2004, following remand, the District Court modified the injunction in accordance with the Sixth Circuit’s order. The case was closed in December 2004.
Key Holdings
NEPA
FONSI for “Class I” Project. The plaintiffs’ alleged that the FONSI was inadequate because it did not directly address the Class I status of the project. They based this argument on FHWA’s regulations, which state that an EIS is “normally required” for Class I projects, such as a four-lane highway on new location. See 23 C.F.R. 771.115(a). The Court of Appeals resolved the case on other grounds, so it did not directly decide whether the FONSI should have addressed the project’s Class I status. However, the Court did note that the FONSI “has been acknowledged by FHWA as deficient.”
Ability to Proceed with Non-Federal Funds (“De-Federalization”). During the District Court litigation, TDOT indicated that it might proceed with the project with non-federal funds, thus avoiding the need for further NEPA review and a new FONSI. To prevent TDOT from proceeding with non-federal funds, the District Court refused to lift its injunction even after FHWA had withdrawn its FONSI. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had erred, and said that TDOT should be allowed to proceed with the project with non-federal funds:
“The district court based its denial of the motion to voluntary remand primarily on its perception of the possible irreparable injury that would come with a voluntary remand – namely, the potential that the TDOT would continue the project on its own without federal funding, thus making the FHWA and compliance with NEPA irrelevant. This consideration in no way supports the injunction against FHWA, however, since state continuation of the project without federal funding would not implicate NEPA in the first place.” Litigation Procedure
Preliminary Injunction – Request to Vacate or Modify. The District Court issued an injunction that broadly prohibited FHWA and TDOT from carrying out any “planning, financing, contracting, land acquisition, [or] construction” for the highway extension. The District Court’s injunction was so broad that it did not even allow FHWA to prepare a new FONSI that addressed the concerns raised by the plaintiffs in their lawsuit. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had erred in refusing to lift the injunction, because it barred FHWA from taking actions to resolve the alleged flaw in its decision:
“The district court in this case articulated no tenable reason for continuing injunctive relief against the FHWA. In the absence of any such reason, it is an abuse of discretion to prevent an agency from acting to cure the very legal defects asserted by plaintiffs challenging federal action…. Accordingly, when an agency seeks a remand to take further action consistent with correct legal standards, courts should permit such a remand in the absence of apparent or clearly articulated countervailing reasons. Otherwise judicial review is turned into a game in which an agency is ‘punished’ for procedural omissions by being forced to defend them well after the agency has decided to reconsider.”
File Attachment
Download the decision