Washington v. U.S. Department of Transportation

–

The federal district court for the Western District of Washington allowed Sierra Club and six other organizations to intervene on behalf of the plaintiff states challenging the suspension or revocation of federal approvals of State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plans and the withholding or withdrawing of National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program funds. The court found that four of the organizations could intervene as of right but that all seven organizations qualified for permissive intervention. The court said the organizations had shown that they would bring “a unique perspective and expertise” that would not necessarily duplicate the plaintiff states’ role.

The federal district court for the Western District of Washington granted in part and denied in part 16 states’ motion for a preliminary injunction in their lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration’s actions to suspend or terminate funding under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s (IIJA’s) National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program for electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure. As threshold matters, the court found that the states’ claims were ripe and that the defendants’ action was reviewable final agency action under the Administrative Procedural Act. The court then found that the states were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the defendants’ actions exceeded their authority under IIJA, that their action was likely arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with law and performed without observance of required procedure, and in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. In addition, the court found that the states demonstrated harms to their EV infrastructure programs and administrative burdens that were not purely economic. The court also found that the balance of equities and public interest favored the states. The court granted the preliminary injunction motion as to all but three of the plaintiffs (Vermont, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia), finding that those plaintiffs had not established irreparable harm such as a delayed or canceled project. The court declined to impose a bond and stayed the injunction until July 1.