Town of Portsmouth v. Lewis
813 F.3d 54
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- The Town of Portsmouth sued Rhode Island state agencies (DOT, Turnpike & Bridge Authority) and federal agencies (FHWA and officials) challenging tolls collected on the Sakonnet River Bridge as violating the Federal‑Aid Highway Act (23 U.S.C. § 301) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4347).
- The State built a federally funded toll‑free replacement bridge (open 2012); later the Rhode Island legislature authorized tolling, and FHWA issued a Revised Record of Decision approving tolls.
- Portsmouth sought injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney fees, and later restitution for tolls already collected; the district court denied preliminary relief, tolls were imposed, and Portsmouth moved for summary judgment and restitution.
- While litigation was pending, the Rhode Island General Assembly repealed toll collection (prohibiting collection after June 2014), and the district court dismissed Portsmouth’s claims as moot. Portsmouth appealed.
- The First Circuit held the injunctive and declaratory claims moot (legislative repeal) and rejected the Town’s restitution claim for failure to preserve it and because neither NEPA nor § 301 (anti‑tolling provision) creates a private right of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are injunctive claims moot after state repeals toll statute? | Portsmouth: FHWA’s ROD approval means future tolling remains likely; injunction still needed. | Defendants: Legislature repealed tolls, so no ongoing conduct to enjoin. | Moot: legislative repeal removed live controversy; injunction claim dismissed. |
| Is declaratory relief moot given repeal? | Portsmouth: Declaratory judgment still warranted to declare prior/future tolls unlawful. | Defendants: No substantial, immediate controversy remains after repeal. | Moot: declaratory claim dismissed; court will not issue advisory ruling. |
| Does the voluntary‑cessation exception save the moot claims? | Portsmouth: Repeal may be litigation‑motivated; governor & senate actions show intent to reauthorize tolls. | Defendants: Legislature presumed to act in good faith; repeal not attributable to litigation; infrastructure dismantled. | Exception inapplicable: presumption of legislative good faith; record insufficient to show repeatability. |
| Is Portsmouth’s restitution claim viable and sufficiently pled? | Portsmouth: Restitution survives mootness because monetary relief can remain; sought refund of illegally collected tolls. | Defendants: Town conditioned restitution on success of injunctive/declaratory claims and failed to preserve/plead it properly. | Dismissed: Town waived/conditioned restitution; even if preserved, neither NEPA nor § 301 implies a private right of action, so no entitlement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Civil Liberties Union of Mass. v. U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 705 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2013) (actual controversy must exist at all stages; mootness framework)
- Sheehan v. City of Gloucester, 321 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2003) (courts consider law as it exists at time of review)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (private right of action requires rights‑creating statutory text phrased in terms of protected class)
- Scarborough Citizens Protecting Res. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 674 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2012) (NEPA does not create a private right of action)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdictional requirements and limits on merits consideration)
- Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017 (2013) (minimal personal stake suffices to avoid mootness for monetary claims)