Federal Environmental Justice Cases

Federal Title 23 Cases

Calio v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation

Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: 23 U.S.C. § 104(b)(2); 23 U.S.C. § 217

Fact Summary: the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) entered into an agreement whereby FHWA granted PennDOT the authority to certify that its transportation projects complied with federal requirements. Using this authority, PennDOT certified that its current plan to turn a portion of the P & W Railway into a bicycle and pedestrian trail was in accordance with federal regulations that required such paths to serve the purpose of transportation (rather than only recreation) if any federal funds were to be used to complete the project. A group of concerned individuals challenged that finding, arguing that the path did in fact serve recreational purposes and not transportation purposes.

Issue: whether PennDOT’s determination that the trail project would be principally for transportation was supported by the record of the planned project.

Holding: PennDOT stated in its application for federal funds to complete the P & W trail that the trail would facilitate both recreation and transportation. The P & W trail was planned to run parallel to a major city street that provided access to numerous public and private facilities and services. In addition, the trail would intersect with five other commercial roads along its path. PennDOT determined that the addition of a bike path along this street would result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled, of the number of vehicle trips, and of the amount of congestion in the surrounding area. The Court found that these results clearly indicated transportation usage.

Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: typically, when bicycle and pedestrian paths are planned, they may not receive federal funding under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program if they only facilitate recreation. If, however, the planned path serves both recreation and transportation purposes, or just transportation purposes, federal money may be utilized to complete the planned path. Where the responsible transportation authority can show that the planned path will have reduce vehicle travel on city streets, it will satisfy the requirement that such paths must facilitate transportation to receive federal funding.

Federal Title VI Cases

Alexander v. Sandoval

Citation: Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 121 S. Ct. 1511, 149 L. Ed. 2d 517 (2001).

Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Fact Summary: the Alabama Department of Public Safety was responsible for conducting state driver’s license exams and only did so in English. The plaintiff acclaimed that this was a violation of Title VI because it had the effect of subjecting non-English speakers to discrimination based on their national origin.

Issue: whether there is an enforceable private right of action for disparate impact created by the regulations implementing Title VI.

Holding: the Court found that section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits intentional discrimination and creates a right to sue for private individuals. However, disparate impact regulations do not arise under 601. Instead, disparate impact cases arise under section 602 and its regulations, which make no reference to a private right of action. The Court was also unwilling to infer a private right of action from the language of 602 and instead chose to rely on Congress’s exclusion of any reference to a private right action as clear indication that they had not intended to create one.

Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: when planning changes and improvements to non-motorized transportation facilities, public entities responsible for doing so will have to make certain evaluations about the impact of those changes to surrounding areas and the inhabitants of those areas. If the court can successfully determine that decisions regarding transportation planning were made in an intentionally discriminatory manner, then those individuals who have been discriminated against have a private right of action against the public entity responsible for the discriminatory behavior.

Bryant v. New Jersey Dept. of Transportation

Citation: Bryant v. New Jersey Dept. of Transp., 998 F.Supp. 438 (D. N.J. 1998).

Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Fact Summary: a group of Atlantic City residents filed suit against the New Jersey Dept. of Transportation (NJ DOT) and other parties for violating Title IV of the Civil Rights Act. The NJ DOT had adopted a plan to build a highway extension and tunnel to increase casino access which would go directly through the neighborhoods where the residents lived and would require the demolition of nine homes in the neighborhoods. These neighborhoods, West Side and Venice Park, were alleged to be the remaining stable middle-class African American neighborhood. Bryant and other residents of these neighborhoods argued that negative impacts of the plan would disproportionately affect minority communities.

Issue: whether the plaintiffs had standing under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to sue the NJ DOT.

Holding: yes, the Court found that though under the previous Simpson standard the plaintiffs did not have standing, with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Federal Credit Union Association standing could be established under the facts presented. The decision in Federal Credit Union Association requires a determination of whether the interest sought to be protected by the complainant (here, one particular plaintiff) is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected by the statute. The Court here concluded that the plaintiff was within the scope of interest because it resulted in a disparate racial impact prohibited section 601 of Title VI.

Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: this case establishes the rule for standing under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To succeed against a public entity responsible for transportation planning, an individual must show that he or she has an interest that is protected by the statute at issue. If the individual cannot show that, then the public entity will likely succeed in having the claim dismissed against them, including situations where the transportation planning involves non-motorized transportation plans.

Directory: planning
planning -> Condominium Name Index to Map Sheets Name Address Map
planning -> Guidelines for implementation of Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities
planning -> Conservation Assessment for the Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog in Oregon and Washington As
planning -> Project name
planning -> Toward the development of a strategic technology plan
planning -> Program Review and Forecast Guideline for Getting Started on Prof background and Context
planning -> Introduction Current State
planning -> Plan 7012: Analysis for Community Planning Fall 2015 Analyzing New Census Data 15 points

Download 234.27 Kb.

Share with your friends: