Case Law Details
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Nason
Project Description:
The project involved replacing a viaduct for Interstate 95 in downtown Providence, Rhode Island. The project was carried out by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Narragansett Indian Tribe, FHWA, RIDOT, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission entered into a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to address impacts that the project might have on historic properties, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The PA required RIDOT to transfer ownership of historically significant properties to the Tribe. RIDOT later insisted that it would not transfer the land to the Tribe unless the Tribe waived its sovereign immunity on the property and agreed that Rhode Island’s civil and criminal laws would apply on the property. The Tribe refused. After the parties were unable to resolve the dispute, FHWA terminated the PA. By this time, part of the project had already been completed and opened to traffic. FHWA reinitiated Section 106 consultation and proposed a new agreement with new mitigation measures.
2020 WL 4201633
2020 WL 4201633
U.S. District Court – Washington DC
07/22/2020
I-95 Providence Viaduct Replacement
Highway
Case Summary
The Tribe alleged that FHWA’s termination of the PA violated Section 106 and its implementing regulations and the Administrative Procedure Act. In this ruling, the court denied FHWA’s motion to dismiss the case. The court held that FHWA could be sued for terminating a PA, even though the Section 106 regulations specifically contemplate termination of PAs. The court explained that an agency’s termination of a PA could violate the Administrative Procedure Act if the termination were arbitrary and capricious. The court did not yet rule on the merits of the Tribe’s claims.
Key Holdings
Termination of Programmatic Agreement
FHWA filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that it could not be sued for terminating a PA. The court denied FHWA’s motion to dismiss the case. The court explained that although the Section 106 regulations specifically contemplate termination of PAs, termination may not always be appropriate. The court held that an agency’s termination of a PA could violate the Administrative Procedure Act if the termination were arbitrary and capricious.
File Attachment