D. C. Federation of Civic Associations v. Volpe
459 F.2d 1231 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative decision is invalid if it is based in whole or in part on extraneous factors not made relevant by Congress, such as political pressure. Furthermore, statutory requirements, such as minimizing harm to parkland and ensuring a project's safety, must be satisfied through determinations based on finalized plans and supported by a contemporaneous administrative record.
Facts:
- A federally-funded bridge, the Three Sisters Bridge, was proposed to be built across the Potomac River into the District of Columbia.
- The proposed bridge would traverse the Three Sisters Islands, use public parkland, and affect the Georgetown Historic District.
- In January 1969, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the official planning body for D.C., adopted a transportation plan that deleted the bridge from the Interstate Highway System.
- Following this, Representative Natcher, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee for D.C., indicated that he would withhold appropriations for the D.C. subway system until the bridge project was restored.
- Under this pressure, the District of Columbia City Council reversed its prior position and voted on August 9, 1969, to approve the bridge project.
- On August 12, 1969, Secretary of Transportation John Volpe announced his approval of the bridge, restoring it to the Interstate Highway System.
Procedural Posture:
- D.C. Federation of Civic Associations sued Secretary Volpe and the District of Columbia in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to enjoin construction of the Three Sisters Bridge.
- In a prior appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the project must comply with applicable provisions of Title 23 of the U.S. Code and remanded the case.
- On remand, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing and found that the Secretary had complied with some statutory provisions but failed to comply with others.
- The District Court enjoined construction pending compliance with certain planning requirements but otherwise affirmed the Secretary's approval of the project.
- Both the D.C. Federation of Civic Associations (plaintiffs) and Secretary Volpe (defendants) appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Secretary of Transportation's approval of a federally-funded highway project violate federal statutes when the decision is influenced by extraneous political pressure and is made before the project's plans are finalized?
Opinions:
Majority - Bazelon, Chief Judge
Yes, the Secretary of Transportation's approval violates federal statutes. A decision by the Secretary of Transportation is invalid if it is based in whole or in part on considerations Congress did not intend to be relevant, such as extraneous political pressure. The court found that the Secretary’s decision was impermissibly tainted by pressure from Representative Natcher, who threatened to withhold funding for the D.C. subway system. This pressure is not a relevant factor under the federal highway statutes. Furthermore, the Secretary failed to comply with numerous statutory provisions because his approval was premature. For example, under § 138, he could not properly determine that there was no prudent alternative to using parkland or that all possible planning to minimize harm had been completed because the bridge's ramps and interchanges had not yet been designed. Similarly, approvals regarding project safety under § 109(a) and consistency with comprehensive planning under § 134 were made without finalized plans or adequate study, such as an analysis of air pollution hazards. The Secretary must make new determinations based strictly on the merits and statutory criteria.
Majority - Fahy, Senior Circuit Judge
In this supplemental opinion addressing deferred issues, the court held that Section 23 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, which directed that the bridge be built 'notwithstanding any other provision of law,' effectively exempted the project from compliance with local D.C. Code planning and hearing provisions. However, the 1968 Act did not exempt the project from federal laws of general applicability. Therefore, the Secretary is still required to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 470f), which requires affording the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the project's effect on historic sites.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - MacKinnon, Circuit Judge
No, the Secretary's approval was valid and should be upheld. The majority improperly substitutes its judgment for that of the Secretary and disregards the factual findings of the trial court. The trial court correctly found that the Secretary's decision was based on the merits of the project, not solely on extraneous political pressure. It is not improper for a Cabinet Secretary to be aware of and consider the expressed will of Congress, particularly regarding the coordination of major transportation projects like highways and subways as required by § 134. Furthermore, the Secretary's determinations were not premature; it is practical and necessary to approve a project's general concept before all final blueprints are complete. The Secretary reasonably relied on the Transportation Planning Board (TPB), the only qualifying regional body, and did not improperly delegate his authority.
Analysis:
This is a landmark administrative law decision that strengthens judicial oversight of agency action under the 'hard look' doctrine. The ruling establishes that courts will invalidate agency decisions influenced by political pressure or other factors not specified in the governing statute. It significantly curtails the ability of the legislative branch to exert informal, targeted pressure on executive agencies to influence specific outcomes. The case also reinforces the requirement for a complete, contemporaneous administrative record for judicial review and mandates that agencies cannot satisfy statutory requirements, such as environmental assessments, until project plans are substantially complete.
