Case Law Details
Highway J Citizens Group, U.A.v. USDOT
Project Description:
The project involved rebuilding, widening, and resurfacing 7.5 miles of State Highway 164 (formerly known as Highway J), a two-lane rural highway in southeast Wisconsin. Highway 164 did not meet current construction standards and had higher crash rates and injury rates compared to similar highways in the state. Problematic conditions included deteriorating pavement, insufficient sight distances at hills and intersections, steep shoulder slopes, steep grades, and intersections that lacked turn lanes or bypass lanes. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) published a draft “environmental report” in December 2013 and a final environmental report in April 2015. The report concluded that the project would have no impact on economic development, would not cause indirect or cumulative environmental effects, and did not involve a high degree of controversy. WisDOT then determined, and FHWA agreed, that the project qualified for a categorical exclusion (CE) that covered “[m]odernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (including parking, weaving, turning, and climbing lanes).”
2016 WL 5390880
2016 WL 5390880
U.S. District Court – Wisconsin
09/27/2016
Highway 164 Reconstruction Project
Highway
Case Summary
Plaintiffs sued WisDOT and FHWA in 2015 to challenge the agencies’ decision to not prepare an EA or EIS for the project. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, alleging the following harm: surveying and appraisal of their properties had and would occur; construction would result in a taking of their property; access to their properties would change; the project would destroy trees and wetlands; the project would promote development in a rural area; they suffered severe stress and anxiety from past project work; and the project would impair their possession, use, and enjoyment of their property. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief.
Key Holdings
Litigation Procedure Preliminary Injunction. The court concluded that the plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction for two reasons. First, the court held that many of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were economic losses that were not irreparable harm because they could be adequately compensated by money damages. Second, the court did agree that certain injuries that the plaintiffs alleged—impacts on wetlands, air quality, aesthetic beauty, and recreational opportunities—were environmental harms that could be irreparable. The court held, however, that these alleged injuries were not imminent. Project construction was not scheduled to begin until April 2018, and the parties had concluded summary judgment briefing in June 2016, so the court would likely reach a final decision on the merits before any of the alleged irreparable environmental harm would occur. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that a preliminary injunction would be necessary to prevent the agencies from entering into irrevocable pre-construction contracts and other binding legal commitments. Because the court held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate irreparable harm, it did not consider whether they demonstrated the other elements for a preliminary injunction.
File Attachment
Download the decision