U.S. lawyers argue that congestion pricing tolls are legally valid as countdown to implementation begins.

The Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office, known as the Southern District of New York (SDNY), has reiterated its legal expertise in defending the legitimacy of congestion pricing. The office recently submitted an 11-page analysis affirming that such pricing is entirely compliant with federal law. This detailed assessment was inadvertently made public as part of the ongoing lawsuit filed by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) against Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy.

The MTA initiated its lawsuit on February 19, the same day Duffy attempted to halt the congestion pricing program, arguing that his actions were legally unfounded, procedurally arbitrary, and violated due process. The SDNY lawyers have backed the MTA’s position, indicating that Duffy’s attempts to undermine the program lack substantial legal grounding.

In a twist that has sparked controversy, Duffy’s Department of Justice has redirected the jurisdiction of the congestion pricing litigation from New York attorneys to a team in Washington, D.C. This decision has been accompanied by allegations that the SDNY intentionally jeopardized the government’s case by filing their legal opinion in a public forum, a claim that has been met with skepticism. Observers argue there is no case to sabotage, as the legal arguments favor the MTA significantly.

The legal brief submitted by the SDNY lawyers underscores the precedent for tolling programs, asserting that federal approval for such initiatives is well-documented and robust. They express confidence that U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman, who is overseeing the case, is unlikely to uphold Duffy’s arguments, which also suggest that the funds raised through congestion pricing must exclusively benefit highway projects, ignoring public transit needs.

Duffy’s recent communications to Governor Kathy Hochul suggested that a toll-free option should accompany congestion pricing, a stipulation the lawyers described as inaccurate. The attorneys reaffirmed that the arrangement surrounding congestion pricing does not include perverse termination provisions or explicit financial assistance from federal entities, further diminishing Duffy’s rationale for his actions.

While Duffy has issued several deadlines pertaining to the termination of the congestion pricing cameras—initially set for March 21 and subsequently moved to later dates—legal experts predict these ultimatums are unlikely to have any bearing on the judicial process. The turmoil stemming from the department’s handling of this case exemplifies the friction between federal officials and the SDNY, a longstanding institution recognized for its commitment to upholding the law and ensuring fairness.

As developments unfold, the ongoing legal battle will play a critical role in shaping the future of congestion pricing in New York City, illustrating both the complexities of urban transportation policy and the legal frameworks that govern it.

Media News Source.