Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Collection

Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade v. City of New York

Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade v. City of New York 

08-7837S.D.N.Y., United States Federal Courts2 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
06/22/2009
Decision
Opinion and order issued.
In March 2009, New York City adopted a package of incentives to encourage taxicab owners to convert to all-hybrid fleets. The incentives had been designed as an alternative to city fuel efficiency rules for taxis struck down earlier by a federal district court on federal preemption grounds. To encourage the purchase of hybrid vehicles, the alternative plan relied on incentives in City lease cap rules rather than miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency standards. The fleet owners and a trade association filed an action in federal court alleging that the rules that reduced the lease caps for non-hybrid, non-clean diesel vehicles constituted a mandate that was preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and the CAA. In June 2009, the district court granted a motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the incentive plan, holding that the new rules amounted to a de facto mandate to purchase hybrid vehicles and thus they were related to fuel economy and preempted under the EPCA and the CAA.
09/08/2008
Complaint
Complaint filed.

City of New York v. Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade 

10-618U.S.2 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
02/28/2011
Decision
Order issued denying certiorari.
The Supreme Court denied a request by New York City to review a Second Circuit decision that blocked enforcement of city regulations requiring taxicab owners to convert to an all-hybrid fleet.
11/05/2010
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
Petition for writ of certiorari filed.

Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade v. City of New York 

09-2901-cvUnited States Second Circuit (2d Cir.)1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
07/27/2010
Decision
Opinion issued.
On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that the rules “relate” to fuel economy standards as that term is understood in statutory construction. The court found that imposing reduced lease caps solely on the basis of whether or not a vehicle has a hybrid engine has no relation to an end other than an improvement in fuel economy. Thus, it was preempted by EPCA. Because the court found that it was preempted by EPCA, it did not reach the  issue of whether it was also preempted under the CAA.