Case Law Details
Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail v. FTA
Project Description:
The Purple Line is a 16.2-mile light rail transit project in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. The project will provide east-west transit service connecting several major activity centers, including two employment hubs and the state’s flagship university campus. It would also provide connections to four stations on the region’s Metrorail subway system. The NEPA process for the Purple Line began in 2003. Both MTA and FTA issued a Draft EIS in 2008, examining eight alternatives. The state identified light rail as its “locally preferred alternative” in mid-2009. FTA and MTA issued a Final EIS in 2012, comparing the light rail alternative and a No Action alternative. FTA issued a Record of Decision approving the light rail project in March 2014.
1:17-cv-01811
1:17-cv-01811
U.S. District Court – Washington DC
09/22/2017
Purple Line
Transit
Case Summary
This is the second of two lawsuits challenging the Purple Line. The first lawsuit involved challenges under NEPA and other environmental laws to the adequacy of the EIS and to FTA’s determinations that a supplemental EIS was not required. In December 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in favor of MTA and FTA on all issues in that case. In September 2017, while the appeal in the first case was pending, the same plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit claiming that FTA had improperly approved the full-funding grant agreement for the Purple Line by failing to make (or inadequately supporting) the required findings under the New Starts grant program. Upon filing the new complaint, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to halt tree-clearing and other construction activities, which had just begun. After a hearing, the court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. As of March 2018, the case remains pending in the district court.
Key Holdings
Preliminary Injunction. The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction for two reasons. First, the court found a “mismatch between their legal claims and the injunctive relief they seek.” The court explained that the plaintiffs challenged the grant agreement, but an order setting aside the grant agreement would not necessarily prevent the State from continuing construction with other sources of funds. Second, the court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to the grant agreement. In particular, the court stated it was “unconvinced” that the FTA had failed to make the required financial determinations supporting its approval of the grant agreement. Therefore, the court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
File Attachment
Download the decision