Congestion pricing began one year ago today, but the lawsuits still linger.
If you recall, in 2024, opponents first tried to stop the tolls from happening (and supporters sued to force Gov. Hochul to implement congestion pricing on time after her "pause." The result was a string of victories establishing that congestion pricing did not violate the Constitution or the National Environmental Protection Act.
But that didn't stop the Trump administration from trying to kill the toll in 2025, which invited a suit by the MTA and New York State. That suit, and a handful of surviving cases from last year, now loom over congestion pricing even as New Yorkers have easily adjusted to the $9 toll. Here then, is a brief summary of the remaining cases defending and attacking congestion pricing.
MTA et al v. Duffy et al
The big enchilada, the main event, the linchpin in this whole damn thing. When U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sent a letter to New York demanding that it cease tolling drivers headed into lower Manhattan, Gov. Hochul declared, "The cameras are staying on," and the MTA sued in federal court [PDF].
In this case, as in many others, the federal government has been playing the role of Keystone Kops, stepping on one rake after another.
Duffy sent another pair of threatening letters that did nothing but strengthen the state's resolve to keep the toll going, and federal lawyers accidentally uploaded an entire memo laying out how the U.S. DOT's case is built on a foundation of sand. The federal argument at this point is that whenever the federal government makes a contract with anyone, there is an unwritten rule allowing the federal agency to void said contract on a whim.
This presiding judge is Lewis Liman, who heard many of the 2024 lawsuits brought by opponents of the toll. Liman has been a consistent skeptic of the suggestion that the toll is somehow unconstitutional or that the MTA failed to do its due diligence when studying the toll.
Similarly, Liman (the brother of Doug Liman who directed Swingers and Christmas classic Go) has not been very receptive to the federal government's case, and in May he issued an injunction preventing the federal government from retaliating against New York or the MTA for continuing to toll drivers. In late January, lawyers for both sides will meet in court for oral arguments.
Liman has written that the MTA is likely to succeed on the merits. However Liman ultimately rules will affect the future of a handful of other cases brought against the MTA and New York State. Such as ...
Trucking Association of New York v. MTA
This case started as a quartet of suits before Liman, but after he dismissed most of the arguments by the United Federation of Teachers, Battery Park City residents and a hodgepodge of anti-congestion pricing advocates and elected officials (that trio did not appeal). Now the case [PDF] is being waged by the Trucking Association of New York on its own.
TANY's suit makes two arguments: a) that charging trucks more to enter the Manhattan central business district violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution because the higher fee for trucks doesn't reflect the fact that trucks are a smaller percentage of the city's overall traffic than passenger cars, and b) that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 prohibits the MTA from doing anything — such as a toll — that causes trucking companies and/or drivers to change their routes, rates or services provided.
Liman dismissed these TANY arguments last year, but did so in a way that allowed the organization to give it a second try. Nonetheless, he dismissed the TANY's Commerce Clause argument by deciding that the organization failed to make a good enough case that congestion pricing tolls trucks an irrationally high amount and that the toll was excessive relative to the costs trucks impose on the city. Liman also opined that congestion pricing doesn't violate the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act because it “does not require trucks to participate in any particular pricing scheme that would impede the ability of market forces to inform carrier prices; instead it only impacts the resource input—the price of trucks’ use of certain roadways.”
The MTA and TANY have traded motions for summary judgment in the case, but Liman has not set hearing a hearing date yet.
Blumencranz v. Hochul et al
Assembly Member Jake Blumencranz sued on behalf of the poor, beaten-down residents of Oyster Bay (median household income: $99,873 per year). His lawsuit takes the side of the the Trump administration, arguing that the MTA is violating federal and state law by continuing to keep congestion pricing going in the wake of Duffy insisting the toll was no longer approved.
Liman, who's also hearing this case, agreed to let the MTA file a response to Blumencranz's suit three weeks after the judge rules on the authority's suit against Duffy since the issues in both cases overlap exactly.
Town of Hempstead et al v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority et al
This is one of two cases that Judge Liman is not overseeing.
Town of Hempstead Supervisor Donald Clavin's suit argues that congestion pricing is an illegal tax as opposed to a toll, that the toll doesn't treat people who leave cars inside the CBD the same as people who drive them into the CBD, that it violates the Eighth Amendment (which prohibits excessive fines), and that the Federal Highway Administration lacked the authority to slot congestion pricing into the Value Pricing Pilot Program.
(The Town of Hempstead also filed a suit in state Supreme Court in 2024. That suit was dismissed, but not before the Town's lawyers forgot to show up for a hearing in front of a bemused Justice Arthur Engoron)
Right now the case is active in the Eastern District of New York, which covers Long Island, but the MTA filed for a change in venue, which is pending.
It's worth noting that in 2023, Judge Cathy Seibel dismissed a similar suit by county executives from Rockland and Orange, deciding that congestion pricing was not an illegal tax and didn't violate the Eighth Amendment.
State of New Jersey v. U.S. Department of Transportation et al
You may remember this case from the way that it drove reporters absolutely insane because it came down to the Friday before congestion pricing actually started.
When we last visited New Jersey v. DOT, Judge Leo Gordon allowed congestion pricing to begin, but also asked the federal government to better explain a few more things: 1) how and why the government determined to fund various plans in the region to mitigate possible spillover traffic issues caused by the toll and 2) that reducing the toll from $15 to $9 didn't undermine the goal to raise money with congestion pricing and three that the MTA evaluated the $9 toll in the larger environmental assessment.
The FHWA submitted answers to those questions, but Gordon is still, apparently, determining whether those answers satisfy him.
