WASHINGTON – New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s aides may have crossed a bridge too far – a 108-year-old federal law that provides steep civil penalties for obstructing bridges.
The statute, the Bridge Act of 1906, provides broad guarantees for interstate commerce on bridges that span U.S. waterways like the Hudson River. It even mentions rafts and steamboats, which used to ply the waterways.
The statute includes cash fines — and more importantly provides a basis for prosecution, says a former Senate staffer who is in touch with transportation officials pursuing Bridge-gate.
“It does come with teeth. There could be some serious consequences. I think it’s something the US Attorney is going to have to take a close look at,” said the former aide.
The U.S. attorney’s office in New Jersey has announced that it is taking up the case, but hasn’t yet revealed a basis for possible prosecution.
Government attorneys in Washington have already zeroed in on the bridge law.
Christie has dismissed two appointees, including his appointee to the Port Authority, David Wildstein, who was allegedly involved with shutting down three lanes of the George Washington Bridge – the nation’s busiest. Newly released emails paint the closure as an act of political retribution against the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, NJ, who failed to endorse Christie.
The U.S. Code states that, “Any persons who shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with the lawful order of the Secretary of Transportation or the Chief of Engineers … shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished in any court of competent jurisdiction by a fine” of $25,000 per violation per day of obstruction.
Additional language gives the government the ability to sue anyone who disobeys an order from the Secretary of Transportation “for such expense may be brought in the name of the United States against such persons … and the removal of any structures erected or maintained in violation of the provisions of said sections.” That could potentially leave New Jersey officials on the hook for the economic damage caused by the closure.
A key hurdle for prosecutors will be applying legislative language that was in part directed at those who, at the turn of the last century, might block commerce in navigable waters below a bridge – rather than deliberately blocking the flow of car traffic above.
The original 1906 act states: “No bridge erected or maintained under the provisions of this Act shall at any time unreasonably obstruct the free navigation of the waters over which it is constructed … or if there be difficulty in passing the draw opening or the draw span of such bridge by rafts, steamboats, or other water craft … to render navigation through or under it reasonably free, easy, and unobstructed.”
If obstruction occurs, “The persons owning or controlling such bridge shall be deemed guilty of a violation of this Act,” according to the law.
“We really aren’t in a position to discuss what statutes we might or might not be looking at,” said US Attorney spokeswoman Rebekah Carmichael.