189 F. Supp. 3d 85
D.D.C.2016Background
- DIBC (Detroit International Bridge Company) holds 1921 congressional authorization to "construct, maintain, and operate" the Ambassador Bridge and sought to build a proximate Twin Span to modernize the crossing.
- Canada and U.S. authorities advanced a publicly owned competing crossing (NITC/DRIC, aka Gordie Howe Bridge), which DIBC alleges will siphon commercial traffic and render the Twin Span financially infeasible.
- DIBC filed a Third Amended Complaint raising statutory/franchise claims under the 1921 DIBC Act, APA challenges to issuance of a Presidential permit, and constitutional claims including equal protection and separation of powers. Several counts were dismissed by the court; DIBC moved for partial reconsideration of Counts 2, 3, 6, and 9.
- Relevant federal framework: the International Bridge Act of 1972 (IBA) delegates approval of international bridges to the President (§535), and Executive Order 11423 delegates routine permit decisions to the Secretary of State subject to presidential oversight.
- The district court (Collyer, J.) amends/clarifies reasoning but denies reconsideration and leaves Counts 2, 3, 6, and 9 dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Count 2: Whether the DIBC Act confers an exclusive franchise or a right that bars a second bridge | DIBC: the 1921 Act grants the only franchise for a Detroit–Canada bridge "unless and until" Congress/Canada expressly authorize another; Executive approvals for NITC/DRIC violate DIBC's statutory/contractual rights | Fed: the DIBC Act granted a time-constrained right to build in the area but no exclusivity; Congress later delegated bridge-approval authority via the IBA | Court: DIBC Act contains no express/implied exclusivity; IBA supplanted need for individual congressional authorization; Count 2 dismissed |
| Count 3: Whether the NITC/DRIC unlawfully prevents DIBC from exercising its perpetual right to "maintain and operate" and to build a Twin Span | DIBC: the Act grants perpetual right to maintain/operate and to build a Twin Span; agency approvals favoring NITC/DRIC effectively deny that right and require discovery | Fed: approvals do not extinguish DIBC's statutory rights; economic competition does not deprive DIBC of the statutory right to build/operate | Court: right to maintain/operate does not imply exclusivity; threat to profitability or competition is not a statutory violation; Count 3 dismissed |
| Count 6: Whether the State Department’s issuance of a Presidential permit for NITC/DRIC is reviewable under the APA (arbitrary, capricious, unlawful) | DIBC: the permit is reviewable agency action; USDS acted under statutory delegation and thus its decision is subject to APA review | Fed: issuance was presidential action (or action on behalf of the President) committed to Presidential discretion under IBA and E.O.11423 and thus not reviewable under the APA | Court: although E.O.11423 and §535 are companion instruments and the permit function implements §535(b), the USDS action was an exercise of discretionary authority vested in the President (and delegated); separation-of-powers and statutory-commitment-to-discretion doctrines bar APA review; Count 6 dismissed |
| Count 9: Whether Federal Defendants violated Equal Protection by favoring NITC/DRIC over DIBC | DIBC: federal agencies expedited/treated NITC/DRIC more favorably and, as a government market participant, should be regulated the same as private actors | Fed: DIBC and NITC/DRIC proponents are not similarly situated; approvals involved different permits, agencies, and legal contexts; rational bases exist for differences | Court: DIBC failed to plead similarly situated comparator or irrational justification; mere disagreement with policy is insufficient; Count 9 dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837) (grants by the public are construed narrowly; no implied grant of exclusivity)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (framework for presidential vs. congressional authority)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (final agency action test)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (President is not an "agency" under the APA; separation-of-powers limits review)
- Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994) (presidential actions vested by statute may be unreviewable under the APA)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (rational-basis review principles)
- Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (elements of "class-of-one" equal protection claims)