WidenI77 v. NC Dep't of Transp.Â, 16-818

In 2014 NCDOT contracted with I-77 Mobility Partners LLC (Mobility) under a Comprehensive Agreement to design, build, operate, and maintain managed toll (HOT) lanes on the I‑77 corridor as authorized by the P3 Statute (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136‑18(39) et seq.).
The agreement grants Mobility exclusive rights to impose and collect tolls for the HOT lanes and limits Mobility’s real property interest to contract rights; constructed infrastructure remains State property and the concession term is limited (50 years max).
WIDENI77 (plaintiff) sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the P3 Statute and the Comprehensive Agreement on multiple constitutional and statutory grounds (delegation, public purpose, Turnpike Statute compliance, unlawful taxation, due process).
Trial court denied a preliminary injunction, later granted summary judgment to defendants (NCDOT, Mobility, State) and dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (inter alia) that the P3 Statute’s delegation met adequate guiding standards and safeguards, the Project serves a public purpose, the agreement complied with the Turnpike statutory scheme as applied, and tolls are not taxes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Delegation of legislative power under P3 Statute	Legislature unconstitutionally delegated unfettered power to NCDOT/Mobility (including toll‑setting) without adequate standards	P3 Statute contains legislative policy, specific guiding standards, and procedural safeguards (Turnpike review, public hearings, reporting); expertise required justifies delegation	Affirmed: delegation constitutional — adequate standards and safeguards exist
Public purpose (Art. V, §2(1))	Financing a privately operated project is not a public purpose (cites Foster)	Project relieves congestion, provides public travel‑time reliability; private benefit is incidental	Affirmed: project serves a public purpose; benefits public generally
Compliance with Turnpike statutes	Comprehensive Agreement violates Turnpike provisions (e.g., lane reduction prohibition; procedural review requirements)	Agreement expressly preserves existing non‑toll lanes and follows P3 Statute’s specific review/hearing regime (which displaces certain Turnpike Authority provisions)	Affirmed: agreement complies with applicable statutory requirements
Delegation of taxing power / Due process	Mobility’s tolls are an unlawful delegation of taxation and deny due process	Tolls are not taxes; constitutional taxation limits inapplicable; procedural safeguards exist	Affirmed: tolls are not taxes; no unconstitutional delegation of taxing power; due process argument fails

Adams v. N.C. Dep’t of Natural & Econ. Res., 295 N.C. 683 (1978) (articulates adequate guiding‑standards test for permissible delegation)
Conner v. N.C. Council of State, 365 N.C. 242 (2011) (recognizes limits but practical necessity of delegation when expertise required)
N.C. Turnpike Authority v. Pine Island, Inc., 265 N.C. 109 (1965) (holds tolls are not taxes and discusses market constraints on toll pricing)
Foster v. N.C. Med. Care Comm’n, 283 N.C. 110 (1973) (public‑purpose limits on using tax funds to finance privately operated hospitals)
Madison Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Morganton, 325 N.C. 634 (1989) (legislative determinations of public purpose entitled to great weight; two‑part test for public purpose)
Martin v. N.C. Hous. Corp., 277 N.C. 29 (1970) (public‑purpose concept is flexible and fact‑specific)
Dobson v. Harris, 352 N.C. 77 (2000) (summary judgment standard on disproving essential elements)
Piedmont Triad Airport Auth. v. Urbine, 354 N.C. 336 (2001) (examples of transportation‑related projects treated as public uses)