Litigation Tracker

Last Updated Nov. 6, 2026
Please use the search function to locate specific items.
*Denotes litigation in which ARTBA is a participant.

Case Name	Summary	Status	Last Significant Action Date	Last Significant Action Description	Case Filed
*Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana v. Duke Energy Indiana, LLC	Citizens Action Coalition and Vote Solar appealed Indiana regulators’ approval of Duke Energy’s proposed natural gas generating facilities. The Indiana Supreme Court is considering whether associations may sue on behalf of their members under the doctrine of associational standing. The decision could affect trade associations’ ability to challenge government actions in Indiana courts.	Pending before Indiana Supreme Court. Oral argument held.	09/17/2026	The Indiana Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether Indiana should recognize the federal doctrine of associational standing, which permits qualifying associations to pursue claims on behalf of their members. The court previously accepted immediate review and invited amicus briefs addressing the issue.
East Fork Enterprises, Inc. v. EPA	Industry petitioners challenged EPA’s 2024 rule restricting methylene chloride under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The case addresses EPA’s evaluation of chemical risks, consideration of workplace protective equipment, and authority to restrict industrial and commercial uses. The outcome has implications for construction materials, coatings, solvents, and chemical compliance.	Fifth Circuit vacated EPA’s 2024 rule and risk determination; remanded to EPA.	09/15/2026	The Fifth Circuit granted the industry petitioners’ petition for review, vacated EPA’s methylene chloride rule and underlying risk determination, and remanded the matter to EPA. The court found legal and evidentiary deficiencies in EPA’s risk evaluation, including its treatment of individual conditions of use and workplace protective equipment.	05/10/2024
*Kentucky v. EPA	A coalition of states and industry groups challenged EPA's 2024 rule lowering the annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter. Petitioners dispute EPA's statutory authority and the rule's scientific and administrative justification. The standard has implications for transportation construction permitting and project delivery.	Pending before U.S. Supreme Court on petitions for certiorari. D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's rule.	10/08/2026	The Supreme Court granted in part a further extension of the deadline for respondents to file responses to the petitions for certiorari. The new deadline is 11/17/2026. The petitions remain pending.	03/06/2024
*Ames Construction, Inc. v. City of Moorhead	Ames Construction sued the City of Moorhead to recover approximately $15.3 million in additional costs arising from soil conditions and temporary shoring failures on a railroad underpass project. The dispute concerns whether an owner-provided geotechnical report creates an implied warranty under the Spearin doctrine, even when the report is not expressly incorporated into the construction contract.	Pending before Minnesota Supreme Court. Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the City of Moorhead.		The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed to review a decision holding that a geotechnical report provided with bid materials was not incorporated into the construction contract and did not create an implied warranty under the Spearin doctrine. The dispute concerns contractor reliance on owner-provided subsurface information and allocation of construction risk.
*Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan	An environmental organization challenged the Air Force's application to renew a hazardous waste disposal permit in Guam, alleging that the agency failed to conduct environmental review under NEPA. The Supreme Court is considering whether submitting the permit application constitutes final agency action subject to judicial review and whether NEPA applies when the permitting process is governed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.	Pending before U.S. Supreme Court. Oral argument held.	10/07/2026	The Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether the Air Force's submission of a hazardous waste permit-renewal application constitutes final agency action and whether NEPA review is required before the application despite the separate permitting requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.	01/25/2022
City of Boston v. Duffy	The City of Boston sued USDOT and FTA challenging the withdrawal of a $20 million RAISE grant for the Roxbury Resilient Corridor project. Boston alleges the withdrawal violates the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional separation-of-powers principles and contends that USDOT lacked statutory authority to withdraw the grant based on the project's inclusion of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.	Pending.	09/28/2026	Boston filed suit challenging USDOT's withdrawal of the city's $20 million RAISE grant and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the agency's decision.	09/28/2026
City of Albuquerque v. Duffy	The City of Albuquerque sued USDOT and FHWA after the agencies withdrew the city's selection for an approximately $11.47 million RAISE grant for the Albuquerque Rail Trail. Albuquerque alleges the withdrawal violates the Administrative Procedure Act, exceeds the agencies' statutory authority, and violates constitutional separation-of-powers principles.	Pending. Defendants' motion to dismiss denied.	07/31/2026	The district court denied USDOT and FHWA's motion to dismiss. The court rejected the government's argument that the dispute belonged exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims and held that withdrawal of Albuquerque's grant selection constituted final agency action subject to APA review, allowing the city's statutory and constitutional claims to proceed.	10/28/2025
Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Duffy	The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA), New York State Department of Transportation, and New York City Department of Transportation sued the U.S. Department of Transportation and Secretary Sean Duffy after USDOT rescinded federal approval of New York City's congestion pricing program under the Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP). Plaintiffs alleged the rescission exceeded USDOT's statutory authority, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and unlawfully threatened to withhold federal transportation funding to force New York to terminate the program. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief restoring the federal approval and preventing USDOT from interfering with the program.	Closed. Final judgment entered for plaintiffs.	03/03/2026	The district court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, held that USDOT lacked statutory authority to unilaterally terminate approval of New York's congestion pricing program, denied the government's cross-motion in substantial part, and entered judgment for plaintiffs on their principal claims.	02/19/2025
Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. United States	The Metropolitan Transportation Authority filed suit against the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The action appears to arise from a dispute over federal transportation funding or grant obligations. The publicly available docket does not disclose the complaint or provide sufficient detail to characterize the specific legal claims.	Pending.	08/27/2026	The court held a status conference following the filing of MTA's amended complaint. The court previously denied MTA's motion for partial summary judgment as moot on 07/07/2026 because the amended complaint superseded the original pleading.	03/17/2026
State of California et al. v. United States Department of Transportation	A coalition of states led by California sued USDOT challenging the Department's "Immigration Enforcement Condition" (IEC), which required recipients of federal transportation funding to cooperate with federal civil immigration enforcement. Plaintiffs alleged the condition exceeded DOT's statutory authority, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, violated the Spending Clause, and unlawfully conditioned billions of dollars in transportation funding on compliance with an unrelated federal policy.	Closed. Final judgment entered for plaintiffs; appeal voluntarily dismissed.	01/21/2026	The First Circuit dismissed USDOT's appeal of the district court's summary judgment and permanent injunction and issued its mandate, leaving the ruling against the Immigration Enforcement Condition in effect.	05/13/2025
Chicago Transit Authority v. United States Department of Transportation	The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) sued USDOT, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the United States after the federal government froze approximately $3.1 billion in previously awarded transit grants for the Red Line Extension and Blue Line modernization projects. CTA alleges the funding freeze violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and exceeds the agencies' statutory authority. CTA also alleges the freeze constitutes unlawful political retaliation and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring USDOT and FTA to resume processing and disbursing grant funds.	Pending. Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment stayed while the parties pursue settlement negotiations.	09/11/2026	The court granted the parties' joint motion to stay resolution of their pending cross-motions for summary judgment while they pursue settlement negotiations. The parties must file a joint status report regarding settlement by 11/09/2026.	03/20/2026
Climate Solutions et al. v. United States Department of Transportation	Climate Solutions, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council sued USDOT and FHWA challenging the agencies' freeze of the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Program established by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Plaintiffs allege that USDOT's refusal to obligate and disburse congressionally appropriated CFI funds violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the constitutional separation of powers, the Take Care Clause, and exceeds the agencies' statutory authority. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring USDOT and FHWA to resume administering the CFI Program.	Pending. Consolidated with State of California et al. v. United States Department of Transportation, No. 2:25-cv-02574 (W.D. Wash.).	09/15/2026	The court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion to complete the administrative record concerning USDOT and FHWA's alleged freeze of Charging and Fueling Infrastructure and EV Charger Reliability and Accessibility Accelerator Program funding. The court previously consolidated the Climate Solutions action with the states' parallel challenge on 02/11/2026. Justia Law	12/16/2025
State of California v. United States Department of Transportation	California sued the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) after FMCSA terminated more than $33 million in federal grant funding for California's commercial vehicle safety programs. California alleged the funding termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and exceeded the agency's statutory authority. The state sought declaratory and injunctive relief restoring the grant funding.	Closed. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on March 6, 2026.	03/06/2026	California filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and the court terminated the case the same day. The public docket does not indicate that the court ruled on the merits of California's APA claims before dismissal.	12/12/2025
California High-Speed Rail Authority v. United States Department of Transportation	The California High-Speed Rail Authority sued USDOT and the Federal Railroad Administration after FRA terminated more than $4 billion in previously awarded federal grant funding for California's high-speed rail project. The Authority alleged the funding termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and exceeded the agencies' statutory authority. The Authority sought declaratory and injunctive relief restoring the grants and preventing the federal government from reallocating the funds.	Closed. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on December 23, 2025, after announcing it would pursue private financing rather than continue the litigation.	12/23/2025	The California High-Speed Rail Authority voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit. Earlier in the month, the district court had denied the federal government's motion to dismiss, allowing the APA claims to proceed, but the Authority elected to end the litigation and pursue alternative financing for the project.	07/17/2025
City of Shoreline v. United States Department of Transportation	The City of Shoreline sued USDOT alleging the agency unlawfully imposed new grant conditions on its previously awarded RAISE transportation grant. The City argues the conditions exceed DOT's statutory authority, violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Spending Clause, and unlawfully threaten congressionally appropriated transportation funding.	Pending. District court proceedings are partially held in abeyance pending further developments in related Ninth Circuit litigation.	09/10/2026	The court ordered USDOT to file the certified administrative record by 10/30/2026 and continued to hold the remaining case deadlines in abeyance pending further developments in related Ninth Circuit litigation concerning federal grant conditions. The parties must propose a schedule for dispositive cross-motions after specified appellate proceedings occur.	04/16/2026
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump	Plaintiffs sued the administration alleging tariffs imposed under IEEPA exceeded statutory authority; the Supreme Court held on February 20, 2026 that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.	SCOTUS decision issued.	02/20/2026	Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, invalidating the challenged tariffs.	03/25/ 2024
State of New Jersey et. al. v. United States Department of Transportation (District Court)	New Jersey and New York sued USDOT after the agency suspended previously obligated federal funding for the Hudson Tunnel Project. The states alleged the suspension violated the Administrative Procedure Act and federal grant regulations. The district court initially entered a temporary restraining order restoring funding and later granted final relief, vacating the funding suspension and permanently enjoining USDOT from withholding or recovering funds based on that suspension.	Final judgment entered for plaintiffs; appealed.	06/29/2026	Court entered final judgment vacating USDOT's funding suspension and permanently enjoining the agency from relying on it to withhold previously awarded Gateway funding.	02/03/2026
Mid-America Milling Company v. U.S. Department of Transportation	Non-DBE plaintiffs sued USDOT stating that the DBE program was unconstitutional.	Case dismissed.	03/19/2026	Judge issued order dismissing case as not ripe.	10/26/23