Trump admin. lawyers accidentally admit a strategy against NYC is likely to fail
In this DML Report…
The U.S. Department of Transportation removed Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office lawyers from a legal challenge to New York’s congestion pricing toll after they mistakenly filed an 11-page internal memo in federal court. The memo, dated April 11, admitted the Trump administration’s strategy to cancel the toll was “very unlikely” to succeed, citing high litigation risks in Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s February 19 decision to revoke the program’s authorization. The document, part of a lawsuit by the MTA against Duffy, was filed in error, leading the DOT to transfer the case to the Justice Department’s civil division in Washington, with the memo later sealed and removed from public access.
New York’s congestion pricing program, launched this year, charges most drivers $9 to enter Manhattan south of 60th Street during peak hours, aiming to reduce traffic and fund $15 billion in mass-transit improvements. The leaked memo revealed internal doubts about the legal basis for terminating the toll, noting that using Office of Management and Budget regulations to end the deal carried significant risks. Environmental lawyer Michael Gerrard called the filing a “classic bonehead move,” as the memo exposed weaknesses in the DOT’s case, including legislative history supporting congestion pricing under the Value Pricing Pilot Program.
(see more below)
The mishap occurred amid turmoil in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office, which has seen five U.S. attorneys since December 2024 following Trump’s return to office. The Trump administration has consistently opposed the toll, with Duffy arguing it’s illegal to establish a pricing zone without a free route and that federal law doesn’t permit tolls solely for revenue generation. However, the memo undercut this position, acknowledging that the Federal Highway Administration has previously defended congestion pricing as serving both congestion reduction and revenue goals, complicating the DOT’s legal stance in the ongoing dispute.