Federal Memo Accidentally Reveals Weakness in Legal Case Against NYC Congestion Pricing
A leaked internal memo from the Department of Justice has inadvertently exposed significant skepticism within the federal government regarding the viability of their legal case against New York City’s contentious congestion pricing program. This memo surfaced accidentally when attorneys from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York uploaded it to a public court docket during ongoing litigation against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The government swiftly asked for this document to be sealed upon recognizing the error.
In the 11-page document, federal prosecutors explicitly stated that defending Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s February 19, 2025 decision to terminate congestion pricing carries ‘considerable litigation risk.’ It noted that the decision to challenge the program could ultimately be viewed as “contrary to law, pretextual, procedurally arbitrary and capricious, and could violate due process.” This admission directly undermines the administration’s claim that the congestion pricing program does not comply with the Federal Highway Administration’s Value Pricing Pilot Program due to its lack of a toll-free alternative and allegations that its primary purpose is revenue generation rather than congestion reduction.
“Federal legal strategies to dismantle congestion pricing appear unlikely to meet judicial scrutiny, raising fundamental concerns about procedural adherence and legal validity,” the leaked memo warned.
As soon as federal attorneys realized the mistake, they urgently contacted all legal counsel involved, imploring them to disregard or delete the sensitive document. Officials publicly admitted the memo was “plainly filed in error,” further highlighting their procedural misstep.
Details of the Legal Arguments and Internal Strategy Debate
The internal discussion among DOJ attorneys, as evidenced by the leaked document, centered significantly on whether the congestion pricing system, which imposes a toll of approximately $9 on vehicles entering Manhattan below 60th Street, is consistent with federal law. Proponents of congestion pricing argue it’s designed primarily to reduce urban congestion and improve air quality, complying fully with federal guidelines under the Value Pricing Pilot Program.
Federal prosecutors challenged the feasibility of Secretary Duffy’s arguments that the pricing system primarily seeks revenue generation, citing numerous court precedents allowing localities to experiment economically and socially, especially under federal pilot programs. They believed asserting a lack of federal permission based on alleged revenue motivations would not hold up under judicial scrutiny.
Recognizing these legal vulnerabilities, the prosecutors proposed an alternate route: justifying the termination of congestion pricing through regulations provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These regulations would underpin arguments about a shift in agency priorities, potentially allowing a more defensible approach legally distinct from initial claims around revenue issues. However, they acknowledged privately that even this fallback justification was likely inadequate, given the congestion pricing program received no federal funding, weakening arguments about financial mismanagement or misuse of resources.
“Given that no federal funds were allocated to New York’s congestion program, defending its termination under changed agency priorities presents significant challenges,” the document noted.
This revelation about internal disagreements and concerns highlights the complexity and fragility of an already controversial federal stance, raising critical questions regarding the administration’s overall strategy.
Broader Context and Implications of the Congestion Pricing Legal Battle
Congestion pricing in New York City represents the United States’ first extensive implementation of a program that uses tolling explicitly to reduce traffic congestion and environmental impacts within dense urban environments. Approved to begin earlier this year, it has already been a subject of political and legal friction, particularly under the Trump administration, which vigorously opposes the program.
The MTA, supported by Governor Kathy Hochul and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, argues the program could generate upwards of $500 million annually, funds that would benefit public transportation infrastructure throughout the metropolitan area. Proponents underscore the success of similar programs internationally, particularly citing congestion pricing’s effectiveness in cities like London and Stockholm in significantly reducing vehicle traffic and improving air quality.
Janno Lieber, MTA Chair and CEO, recently reiterated the Authority’s confidence in defending the legal legitimacy of congestion pricing. During a radio interview following the leak, Lieber emphasized that the MTA has consistently maintained the federal government lacks unilateral authority to dismantle this critical infrastructure initiative, though he refrained from specific comments on the leaked DOJ memo.
The accidental disclosure of the internal DOJ document not only complicates the immediate litigation but also provides ammunition to congestion pricing supporters. It offers a clearer understanding of federal legal vulnerabilities, potentially shaping the broader policy debate.
As the litigation proceeds, the controversy surrounding this document will influence the public and policymaker perceptions of congestion pricing’s legality and potential as a model for other urban centers nationwide, notably Los Angeles, which has contemplated similar strategies to manage its heavy traffic burdens.
While the case undergoes a transition in oversight to the Department of Justice’s Civil Division based in Washington, D.C., the revelation of internal federal doubts will undoubtedly impact public confidence and the strategic positioning of both advocates and opponents of congestion pricing nationwide.