Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail v. Federal Transit Administration
263 F. Supp. 3d 144
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- In March 2014 the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a Record of Decision (ROD) approving the Purple Line light-rail project in Maryland; plaintiffs challenged the ROD under the APA and multiple environmental statutes.
- In August 2016 the court vacated the ROD and remanded for further NEPA analysis, holding FTA failed to consider WMATA Metrorail safety and ridership problems' effect on the Purple Line.
- After remand the FTA relied on an MTA technical assessment and concluded no supplemental EIS (SEIS) was needed; plaintiffs submitted expert declarations challenging that conclusion which the court found unaddressed in the agency record.
- On May 22, 2017 the court again ordered an SEIS for failure to take a “hard look”; on May 30 the court entered final judgment resolving remaining claims for defendants.
- Maryland, as defendant-intervenor, moved to stay the judgment and reinstate the ROD pending appeal, asserting likely success on appeal and irreparable economic and project harms; the court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether movant likely to succeed on appeal | Plaintiffs argued FTA failed to consider declarations and thus vacatur/SEIS was required (supporting denial of stay). | Maryland argued the agency considered the submissions or, alternatively, never reopened the record so it had no duty to reconsider them, and challenged vacatur. | Court: Maryland failed to show likelihood of success; FTA did not meaningfully analyze plaintiffs’ declarations and vacatur was appropriate. |
| Whether movant faces irreparable harm without a stay | Plaintiffs: continued vacatur protects environmental review and prevents irreversible construction. | Maryland: economic losses (~$13M/month), contract risks with private partner, and increased risk of project cancellation. | Court: Economic and self-imposed contractual risks are insufficient; no irreparable harm shown. |
| Whether balance of harms favors a stay | Plaintiffs: environmental harms from premature funding/construction outweigh state’s monetary harms. | Maryland: public benefits (jobs, transit, development) favor allowing construction and funding now. | Court: Balance favors denying stay because permitting irreversible construction while NEPA analysis is incomplete is not in public interest. |
| Standard for stay pending appeal | Plaintiffs: require showing likelihood of success and irreparable harm. | Maryland: argues a lesser “serious legal question” standard may suffice. | Court: Declined to resolve sliding-scale dispute but found Maryland failed under either approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (stay pending appeal standard and four-factor test)
- Cuomo v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 772 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (burden on movant and limits on equitable relief)
- Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Hopper, 827 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (agency must consider submissions on remand; failure can be arbitrary and capricious)
- Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (factors for remand without vacatur)
- Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (economic loss alone does not establish irreparable harm)
- Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (discussion of sliding-scale approach to prelim. relief)
- Davis v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (noting limits to sliding-scale approach post-Winter)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standards informing stay jurisprudence)
- Public Employees for Envtl. Resp. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 189 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016) (vacatur is presumptive remedy for NEPA violations)