Coalition for the Advancement of Regional Transportation v. Federal Highway Administration, 576 F. App'x 477

Background

Coalition for the Advancement of Regional Transportation (a 501(c)(3)) sued federal and state actors alleging NEPA and Title VI violations related to the Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project.
The project is a $2.6 billion plan to improve cross-river mobility with five major elements, including Downtown and East End Crossings and toll-based financing.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) led NEPA compliance, issuing a Draft EIS (2001), Final EIS (2003), and a Supplemental Final EIS with a Revised ROD (2012).
Initial funding forecasts collapsed; a Bridges Authority and tolling emerged as financing to close a $2.2 billion shortfall, prompting a Supplemental EIS and updated IFP (2012).
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims; the plaintiff appealed, narrowing to NEPA claims and Title VI against state defendants.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FHA's NEPA process and decisions were arbitrary or capricious	NEPA was not adequately considered; purpose/need and alternatives were flawed.	NASA—correct typo? (Use defendant) FHA conducted a comprehensive, rational study of impacts and alternatives; kept within NEPA bounds.	No; challenged NEPA actions were not arbitrary or capricious.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding new evidentiary material from the administrative record	New evidence should supplement the record due to potential agency bad faith.	No bad faith shown; supplementation unwarranted given timing and earlier opportunity to submit.	No abuse of discretion; no substantial showing of bad faith.
Whether the Purpose and Need Statement was arbitrary and capricious	The P&N was too narrow or sham, merging two sites into a mega-project and excluding minority-focused aims.	The P&N was reasonable, supported by data, and encompassed regional mobility needs.	Not arbitrary or capricious.
Whether the review of reasonable alternatives under NEPA was arbitrary and capricious	Non-tolled and standalone alternatives were improperly excluded.	Reviewed broad range; only the Modified Selected Alternative met needs; non-tolled options infeasible.	Not arbitrary or capricious.
Whether Title VI claims against state defendants survive summary judgment	Tolling and related impacts disproportionately burden minority populations; discriminatory intent shown by sequence and background.	No discriminatory intent; tolling justified by funding shortfalls and mitigated by measures like bus funding.	No genuine issue of material fact; Title VI claims fail.

Key Cases Cited

Kentuckians for the Commonwealth v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 746 F.3d 698 (6th Cir.2014) (NEPA review is limited in scope; procedural sufficiency matters)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court 1982) (arbitrary and capricious review governs agency action)
Alaska Dept of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (Supreme Court 2004) (even imperfect agency explanations can be upheld if reasonably explained)
Webster v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 685 F.3d 411 (4th Cir.2012) (agencies have discretion defining purpose and need within reason)
Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C.Cir.1991) (NEPA purpose/need and alternatives must be reasonably defined)
Tinicum Township v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 685 F.3d 288 (3d Cir.2012) (NEPA line-drawing decisions; detail not always required)
Latin Americans for Soc. & Econ. Dev. v. Admin’r of FHWA, 756 F.3d 447 (6th Cir.2014) (NEPA review and purpose/need considerations; rationale shown)
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (Supreme Court 1977) (circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent factors)
Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (Supreme Court 1979) (discriminatory purpose requires more than awareness of consequences)