254 F.Supp.3d 15
D.D.C.2017Background
- AAF Holdings sought to build a Miami–Orlando high‑speed rail in two phases; Phase I (Miami–West Palm Beach) nearly complete, Phase II (West Palm Beach–Orlando) runs through Indian River and Martin Counties.
- AAF applied for a $1.6 billion RRIF loan (FRA administers RRIF and NEPA applies) and separately requested $1.75 billion in tax‑exempt private activity bonds (PABs) from DOT in 2014.
- DOT provisionally allocated $1.75 billion in PABs in December 2014; the counties sued alleging DOT granted the allocation without required NEPA, NHPA, and DOTA compliance.
- The Court previously held the PAB allocation could constitute "major Federal action" and denied DOT’s motion to dismiss those claims.
- In late 2016, AAF asked DOT to withdraw the 2014 allocation and submitted a new application for $600 million (Phase I); DOT rescinded the 2014 allocation and issued the new $600 million allocation.
- Defendants moved to dismiss as moot; the Court evaluated mootness under the voluntary‑cessation framework and granted the motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suits are moot after DOT rescinded the 2014 PAB allocation | The withdrawal is a tactical two‑step maneuver designed to accomplish the same $1.75B financing (i.e., DOT will reissue the remainder for Phase II without complying with environmental laws) | Rescission of the challenged agency action eliminates the relief sought; any future allocation would be a new, reviewable action | Moot — withdrawal removed any meaningful relief; voluntary cessation standard applies |
| Whether there is a reasonable expectation the alleged violation will recur | DOT’s historical practice and AAF’s letter indicate a near‑term second application for the remaining $1.15B; risk of repeat noncompliance exists | Whether a future PAB allocation violates NEPA depends on allocation size, conditions, and control; prior Court ruling and changed administration reduce likelihood of recurrence | No reasonable expectation of recurrence — individualized future assessments and change in administration make recurrence speculative |
| Whether intervening events completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation | Even if rescission occurred, a declared policy of ignoring environmental laws would leave effects and risk intact | The complaint challenged a specific allocation; rescission removes the sole subject and leaves no meaningful remedy to grant | Effects eradicated — rescission renders any injunction or declaratory relief advisory, so mootness follows |
Key Cases Cited
- Indian River Cty. v. Rogoff, 201 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016) (prior opinion holding a PAB allocation can be "major Federal action" triggering NEPA, NHPA, and DOTA)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721 (2013) (defendant's voluntary cessation does not automatically moot a case)
- Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67 (1983) (federal courts limited to actual cases or controversies)
- County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (1979) (case is moot when issues are no longer live or relief is unavailable)
- Larsen v. U.S. Navy, 525 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (articulating voluntary‑cessation two‑part test: no reasonable expectation of recurrence and eradication of effects)
- Lemon v. Green, 514 F.3d 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (intervening events can make it impossible to grant effective relief)