A New Jersey federal judge said on Wednesday that he plans to rule on the fate of the MTA’s congestion pricing program by early June — just before the agency seeks to begin tolling drivers who go south of 60th Street in Manhattan.
Judge Leo Gordon shared when he expects to rule on the Garden State’s challenge to the tolling program during the first of two days of oral arguments in U.S. District Court in Newark. While other lawsuits seeking to block congestion pricing are also pending in Manhattan, Gordon will likely be the first to rule on whether the MTA and federal government’s analysis of the program’s likely impacts was adequate.
He seemed to acknowledge on Wednesday that his ruling on congestion pricing would have major implications for the region and entire country.
“This case could set a precedent,” MTA lawyer Elizabeth Knauer said, touting congestion pricing as a national model to help fight climate change.
“You think?” Gordon said, sarcastically.
On Thursday, the judge added he was mindful of the MTA's plan to turn on the tolls in June.
“I’ll do my best. I know the timeline, I know the obligations. If can’t, I’ll let you know. I’ll get you a decision with sufficient time,” he said.
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy last July announced his state’s suit against the Federal Highway Administration over its approval of the plan, claiming the MTA didn’t take a close enough look at the impacts the tolls would have on the Garden State.
New Jersey’s lawyer Randy Mastro argued in court the tolls would increase pollution in the state because more drivers would look to avoid Manhattan. He cast congestion pricing as a money grab by the MTA.
“The MTA has a voracious appetite for picking its neighbor’s pockets,” Mastro said.
The prominent lawyer has represented Madison Square Garden owner James Dolan, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie during the "Bridgegate" scandal, and was a deputy mayor to New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani — a career highlight he referenced at least three times in court.
Lawyers for the MTA and Federal Highway Administration countered that the plan would reduce traffic and not harm any part of New Jersey.
Roberta Kaplan, who is representing the MTA, pledged the agency would spend money to mitigate congestion pricing’s impacts west of the Hudson River.
“Money is going to be sent to mitigate [in] the various New Jersey counties who need it,” Kaplan said. She is also a high-profile attorney and recently won legal victories against former President Donald Trump on behalf of writer E. Jean Carroll.
Kaplan has slammed what she has called New Jersey’s “revisionist history” about the toll program. She emphasized that the state opted not to participate in years of public hearings and planning about congestion pricing.
New York state lawmakers first approved congestion pricing in 2019, with the goal of reducing gridlock in Manhattan and using the funds to pay for upgrades to mass transit. The MTA has said the program will push people out of cars and onto trains and buses, which in turn will reduce air pollution.
Gordon offered few hints about which way he was leaning in the case. At Wednesday's hearing, he repeatedly questioned lawyers for the federal government about its environmental review process. He also focused on the analysis of air quality measurements and traffic patterns once congestion pricing goes into effect.
Gordon seemed to grow frustrated as the federal government and MTA struggled to clearly explain why federal officials signed off on congestion pricing before the MTA board approved a final toll structure.
“Give me something that lets me say this is kosher,” he said.
Mastro also took jabs at the MTA and the agency's Chair Janno Lieber, who was sitting in the courtroom.
“I see Janno back there, grinning like the Cheshire Cat that he’s going to get $15 billion,” Mastro said, referring to the amount of money the MTA is expected to raise from congestion pricing.
Lieber didn’t acknowledge the comment or speak to reporters after the hearing.
Gordon isn’t the only judge who will have a say over congestion pricing's fate. Oral arguments are scheduled for next month in another lawsuit in Manhattan federal court revolving around similar legal arguments against the tolls.
