Latin Americans for Soc. & Econ. Dev. v. Adm'r of the Fed. Highway Admin.
| Decision Date | 05 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 10–10082. |
| Citation | 858 F.Supp.2d 839 |
| Parties | LATIN AMERICANS FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Citizens With Challenges, Detroit Association of Black Organizations, Detroiters for Progress, Mana De Metro Detroit, Mexican Patriotic Committee of Metro Detroit, Detroit International Bridge Company, Plaintiffs, v. The ADMINISTRATOR OF the FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, in his official capacity, THE Federal Highway Administration, James J. Steele, in his official capacity as the Michigan Division Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, an individual, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Anthony Michael Alexis, Sr., Jay Christopher Johnson, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, John C. Berghoff, Jr., Mayer, Brown, Chicago, IL, Lawrence T. Garcia, Stephani A. Judd, Garcia Law Group, PLLC, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Marissa A. Piropato, Stacey Bosshardt, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Kenneth L. Shaitelman, U.S. Attorney's Office, Detroit, MI, for Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AFFIRM (Doc. 68)
APPENDIX—List of Acronyms
EXHIBIT 1—Reports and Studies Underlying the DRIC record
This is case under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),15 U.S.C. § 702, involving a challenge to the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) January 4, 2009, Record of Decision (ROD) which selected as the “environmentally approved alternative” a new international bridge crossing between the United States and Canada in the Delray 2 neighborhood in Detroit, Michigan (the DRIC project).3 Plaintiffs include a number of community organizations with ties to the Delray neighborhood as well as the operators of the Ambassador Bridge, an international bridge crossing located approximately two miles from the proposed crossing. Plaintiffs contend that defendants—the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration,4 James Steele, in his official capacity as the the Michigan Division Administrator of the FHWA, and the FHWA—failed to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) when they issued the ROD. Simply stated, it is plaintiffs' contention that the NEPA process was pretextual and resulted in a decision that was arbitrary and capricious act.
While the process is further explained below, attached as Exhibit 1 is an exhibit prepared by the FHWA (Doc. 68–2) entitled Reports and Studies Underlying the DRIC record which captures the depth and breadth of the NEPA process in a nutshell. This documents lists 103 reports and studies on varied relevant topics which comprise the heart of the NEPA process. These documents include, but are not limited to, the illustrative alternatives, need and feasibility analysis, traffic analysis, air quality analysis, cultural analysis and archeological resources, engineering analysis, and impacts analysis. This exhaustive process lead to the selection of the preferred location for the United States side of a new crossing in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- La. Crawfish Producers Ass'n W. v. Mallard Basin, Inc.
-
Social v. Adm'r of the Fed. Highway Admin.
... 756 F.3d 447 LATIN AMERICANS FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ... ...
- Pegasus Equine Guardian Ass'n v. U.S. Army
- Social v. Adm'r of the Fed. Highway Admin., 12-1556