Facts of the Case
Under § 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and § 138 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, the Secretary of Transportation may not authorize use of federal funds to finance construction of highways through public parks if a "feasible and prudent" alternative route exists. If no such route is available, he may approve construction only if there has been "all possible planning to minimize harm" to the park. Petitioners contend that the Secretary has violated these statutes by authorizing a six-lane interstate highway through a Memphis public park. In April, 1968, the Secretary announced that he agreed with the local officials that the highway go through the park; in September, 1969, the State acquired the right-of-way inside the park; and in November, 1969, the Secretary announced final approval, including the design, of the road. Neither announcement of the Secretary was accompanied by factual findings. Respondents introduced affidavits in the District Court, indicating that the Secretary had made the decision and that it was supportable. Petitioners filed counter affidavits and sought to take the deposition of a former federal highway administrator. The District Court and the Court of Appeals found that formal findings were not required, and refused to order the deposition of the former administrator. Both courts held that the affidavits afforded no basis for determining that the Secretary exceeded his authority.
Arbitrary and Capricious Review at the Court After FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project: From the Return of “Hard Look” to the “Zone of Reasonableness”
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) instructs courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings,...
Redressing Politicized Spending
Engage Volume 15, Issue 1 February 2014
Note from the Editor: This article is about politicized spending in the federal discretionary budget. ...
Can the Environmental Protection Agency Stop the Pebble Mine?
Engage Volume 14, Issue 2 July 2013
Note from the Editor: This article discusses whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority...