- MTA v. Duffy, filed in federal court, S.D.N.Y., on 2/19/25, Judge Lewis Liman has issued a preliminary injunction, as requested by the MTA, preventing for now the federal Secretary of Transportation from withholding federal transportation funds from New York. Summary judgment motions are pending.
- Chan et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation et al., filed in federal court, S.D.N.Y. on 11/22/23, Judge Lewis Liman entered judgment for Defendants (USDOT et al.) on all counts.
- Mulgrew et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation et al., filed in federal court, E.D.N.Y. on 1/4/24 and later transferred to S.D.N.Y. on 3/4/24, Judge Lewis Liman entered judgment for Defendants (USDOT et al.) on all counts.
- New Yorkers Against Congestion Pricing Tax et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation et al., filed in federal court, S.D.N.Y. on 1/18/24, Judge Lewis Liman entered judgment for Defendants (USDOT et al.) on all counts.
- Trucking Association of New York v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al., filed in federal court, S.D.N.Y. on 5/30/24, Judge Lewis Liman entered judgment for Defendants (USDOT et al.) on all counts. Plaintiffs elected to amend and refile their complaint. New York Attorney General Letitia James, an intervenor defendant in her official capacity, has filed a motion to dismiss this first amended complaint. Thus, this case is still pending.
- County Of Rockland et al v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority et al., filed in federal court, S.D.N.Y. on 3/26/24, Judge Cathy Siebel dismissed this case and denied a preliminary injunction requested by Plaintiffs. This case is still pending as Plaintiffs filed for appeal.
- Neuhaus v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority et al., filed in federal court, S.D.N.Y. on 5/23/24, Judge Cathy Siebel dismissed this case and denied a preliminary injunction requested by Plaintiffs. Stefan Neuhaus brought this suit in his official capacity as the County Executive of Orange Country.
- Town of Hempstead v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, filed in federal court, E.D.N.Y. on 5/01/24, is currently pending. This case is related to Town of Hempstead et al. v. Hochul et al.
- New Jersey v. United States Department of Transportation et al., filed in federal court, D.N.J. on 7/21/23, Judge Leo Gordon granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The case was remanded to the FHWA to provide further explanation regarding their mitigation funding allocation. Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement its complaint, but Judge Gordon stayed this motion pending the resolution of the Court’s consideration of remand results.
- Riders Alliance v. Hochul, filed in state court, the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, on 7/25/24, was brought to challenge Governor Hochul’s pause on the implementation of the congestion pricing program. This case was discontinued when the congestion pricing program began.
- The City Club of New York v. Hochul, filed in state court, the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, on 7/25/24, was brought to challenge Governor Hochul’s pause on the implementation of the congestion pricing program. This case was discontinued when the congestion pricing program began.
- Town of Hempstead et al v. Hochul, filed in state court, the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, on 11/21/24, was brought to challenge Governor Hochul’s pause on the implementation of the congestion pricing program. It was removed to federal court, E.D.N.Y., then remanded back to state court with a change of venue to the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. The case was dismissed and Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction denied as moot. Plaintiffs filed for appeal.
-
MTA v. Duffy, 1:25-cv-01413-LJL
- Court: Federal - S.D.N.Y.
- Date filed: 2/19/2025
- Current status of case: Preliminary injunction granted to Plaintiffs; motion for partial summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs and intervenor Plaintiffs, motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant, opposition to motions filed on both sides.
- Summary of opinion granting preliminary injunction: Plaintiffs and intervenor Plaintiffs filed suit seeking protection for the Tolling Program from action by US Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy. The court enjoined Defendants from taking any agency action to terminate the Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP) Agreement and held that Plaintiffs established a high likelihood of success on the merits that Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously except in their failure to perform a subsequent NEPA review.
The following four cases have been closed per Judge Liman’s opinion on April 17, 2025. The below chart summarizes how each case was decided. They are considered related and have been closed together in one opinion.
-
Chan et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation et al., 1:23-cv-10365
- Court: Federal – S.D.N.Y.
- Date filed: 11/22/2023
- Current status of case: See above table. Plaintiffs second amended complaint (operative complaint) asserted following causes of action: (1) NEPA and APA violation through arbitrary and capricious conduct, (2) violation of NEPA through failure to supplement, (3) violation of NEPA through insufficient reevaluation, (4) violation of the Commerce Clause, (5) violation of right to travel, and (6) violation of the Green Amendment. The court granted Defendants’ motions for dismissal and partial summary judgment, and denied Plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs have elected not to replead counts 4 and 5 of the case, which were the only counts dismissed without prejudice. Case terminated on July 14, 2025.
- Summary of Opinion: The Court was not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments and held that the Tolling program doesn’t discriminate against interstate commerce of impose an excessive burden compared to benefits conferred, that the toll doesn’t excessively burden right to travel as it’s a fair approximation of use, that there were no significant environmental impacts warranting a supplemental EIS, and the decision not to supplement was based on consideration of relevant factors.
-
Mulgrew et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation et al., 1:24-cv-01644
- Court: Federal – E.D.N.Y., transferred to S.D.N.Y on 03/04/2024
- Date filed: 01/04/2024
- Current status of case: See above table. This action was brought by the United Federation of Teachers, Coalition of Black Unionists, NY politicians, and many others as an environmental justice case. Plaintiffs have elected not to replead counts 4 and 5 of the case, which were the only counts dismissed without prejudice. Case terminated on July 14, 2025.
- Summary of Opinion: See above summary in Chan. Plaintiffs second amended complaint (operative complaint) asserted the same 6 causes of action in the same order as in Chan.
-
New Yorkers Against Congestion Pricing Tax et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation et al., 1:24-cv-00367
- Court: Federal – S.D.N.Y.
- Date filed: 01/18/2024
- Current status of case: Plaintiffs first amended complaint (operative complaint) asserted the following causes of action: (1) NEPA and APA violation through arbitrary and capricious conduct, (2) violation of NEPA through failure to supplement, (3) violation of the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA), (4) declaratory and equitable relief, (5) violation of the Green Amendment. Case was terminated on July 15, 2025.
- Summary of Opinion: The Court thinks there is enough to support that the exercise of discretion was informed, so it survives a motion to dismiss on count 1, count 2 was abandoned, counts 3 and 5 were dismissed for failure to state claim for relief, and count 4 was previously dismissed as it is a remedy, not a cause of action.
-
Trucking Association of New York v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al., 1:24-cv-04111
- Court: Federal – S.D.N.Y.
- Date filed: 05/30/2024
- Current status of case: Plaintiffs complaint (operative complaint) asserted the following causes of action: (1) violation of the Commerce Clause, (2) violation of the right to travel, (3) violation of the Supremacy Clause. AG Letitia James intervened in her official capacity. Plaintiffs amended the complaint on 06/13/2025 and AG James filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on 07/11/2025. Case is still pending.
- Summary of Opinion: Court looks at Commerce Clause and right to travel together, concludes that Plaintiffs haven’t brought enough in the claim to survive a motion to dismiss on these grounds. The third count is also dismissed but not addressed very directly in the opinion.
The following three cases are against the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. The first two, County of Rockland and Neuhaus, were closed together on 07/14/2025 when a motion to dismiss was granted to the Defendants.
-
County Of Rockland et al v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority et al., 7:24-cv-02285
- Court: Federal – S.D.N.Y.
- Date filed: 03/26/2024
- Current status of case: Preliminary injunction requested by Plaintiffs was denied on 12/23/2024. Case closed and Defendants’ motion to dismiss granted on 07/14/2025. County of Rockland filed appeal on 08/12/2025.
- Summary of Opinion: The following causes of action were brought (1) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the US and NY Constitutions, (2) unauthorized tax under NY law, (3) violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of US and NY Constitutions. The Court held that rational basis review applies and Plaintiffs did not meet their heavy burden to show a 14th Amendment violation. Furthermore, the charge is a toll, not a tax, and since it’s not punitive, the Excessive Fines Clause doesn’t apply.
-
Neuhaus et al. v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority et al., 7:24-cv-03983
- Court: Federal – S.D.N.Y.
- Date filed: 05/23/2024
- Current status of case: Preliminary injunction requested by Plaintiffs was denied on 12/23/2024. Brought by County of Orange and Stefan Neuhaus in his official capacity. Case closed and Defendants’ motion to dismiss granted on 07/14/2025.
- Summary of Opinion: The following causes of action were brought (1) violation of the right to travel, (2) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the US and NY Constitutions, (3) unauthorized tax under NY law. See above for Counts 2 and 3 analysis, for Count 1 the Court cites Chan and notes that there is not enough to show discrimination against interstate commerce.
-
Town of Hempstead v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, 2:24-cv-03263
- Court: Federal – E.D.N.Y.
- Date filed: 05/01/2024
- Current status of case: Pending, multiple filings for extension of time to file response. Last known filing was 08/19/2025. Notice of related case filed saying this case is related to Town of Hempstead et al. v. Hochul et al. (last case on this sheet)
The following case was filed in the District Court for the District of New Jersey.
-
New Jersey v. United States Department of Transportation et al., 2:23-cv-03885
- Court: Federal – D.N.J.
- Date filed: 07/21/2023
- Current status of case: The court granted in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and grants in part and denies in part Federal Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’ cross-motions for summary judgment on 12/30/2024. Remanded to the FHWA to provide further explanation. Interlocutory appeal was filed on 01/05/2025 and on 07/08/2025 briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to supplements its complaint is stayed pending the resolution of the Court’s consideration of remand results.
- Summary of Opinion: The Court didn’t find the following arguments persuasive: the geographic scope selected for the Final EA and FONSI and the FHWA’s decision not to use NJ’s mapping tool and definition for environmental justice communities were arbitrary and capricious, outreach and agency coordination efforts were not adequate under NEPA. The court did find it persuasive that the FHWA acted arbitrarily in setting specific mitigation funding commitments for the Bronx but not for affected areas in NJ.
The following two cases were filed in state court in New York against Governor Hochul’s pause on the congestion pricing program. Motions to dismiss from Defendants were denied on these cases together on 9/30/2024 as the court (Judge Ergoron) held their stated causes of action were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss as they provided plausible arguments that Governor Hochul paused the plan indefinitely, petitioners were residents of the Central Business District and thus uniquely harmed sufficient to grant them standing, and that the decision was ministerial rather than discretionary. However, when congestion pricing was implemented, both cases were discontinued.
-
Riders Alliance v. Hochul, 156711/2024
- Court: State – Supreme Court of New York, New York County
- Date filed: 7/25/2024
- Current status of case: Case disposed, motion to discontinue the case granted on 01/05/2025 and 04/10/2025 for Article 78 officer relief grounds as the congestion pricing program began.
-
The City Club of New York v. Hochul, 156696/2024
- Court: State – Supreme Court of New York, New York County
- Date filed: 7/25/2024
- Current status of case: Case disposed, motion to discontinue the case granted on 01/15/2025 and 04/11/2025 for Article 78 officer relief grounds as the congestion pricing program began
Finally, Town of Hempstead et al. v. Hochul was filed in state court, removed to EDNY, then remanded in 2024. Like the two above, it was filed against Governor Hochul but argued on different grounds and was dismissed rather than discontinued.
-
Town of Hempstead et al v. Hochul et al., 24-cv-8121 (EDNY), 450653/2025 (NY courts)
- Court: State – Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, then removed to federal court (E.D.N.Y.), then remanded back to state court with change of venue (Supreme Court of NY, New York County)
- Date filed: 11/21/2024
- Current status of case: Case filed on grounds that phased-in schedule violates the State Administrative Procedure Act. Case removed from the New York Supreme Court, Nassau County to the Eastern District of New York in November 2024, but remanded to state court in December 2024 with change of venue. Defendants’ motion to dismiss granted and Plaintiffs’ motion for injunction denied solely as moot, case disposed on 06/23/2025. Notice of Appeal by Plaintiffs filed on 07/23/2025.
- Summary of Opinion: Court held that under SAPA and per Judge Liman’s opinion in Chan, the phase-in program is a Type (ii) rule since it’s a prescription for a future rate rather than wholesale setting and implementing a rate policy, and thus it is exempt from certain revision and public notice requirements that would apply if it were Type (i). Furthermore, the court held that Plaintiffs didn’t have enough within their complaint to show that Governor Hochul was acting ultra vires.
Special thanks to Anushka Limaye and Eric A. Goldstein of the Natural Resources Defense Council for their invaluable assistance in crafting this compilation.
Related Lab Posts
Feb 2026