New York City’s congestion pricing program has drawn a congestion pricing lawsuit from almost every direction since it launched on January 5, 2025: the Trump administration tried to kill it, New Jersey sued over environmental review, and trucking groups, a teachers’ union, and suburban towns filed their own cases. The central federal case, MTA v. Duffy, was decided in the MTA’s favor in March 2026 and is now on appeal to the Second Circuit. New Jersey’s long-running challenge is in settlement talks. Nearly every other suit has been dismissed.
MTA v. Duffy: The Federal Case Over Killing the Program
On February 19, 2025, roughly six weeks after tolling began, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sent Governor Kathy Hochul a letter declaring the program ineligible under the federal Value Pricing Pilot Program and purporting to rescind the Federal Highway Administration’s approval. The letter also sought to terminate a cooperative agreement that the FHWA, New York State DOT, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, and the New York City DOT had signed on November 21, 2024. President Trump announced on social media the same day that “CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD.”1Eno Transportation. Timeframe for Court Showdown on NYC Congestion Pricing Becomes Clear2New Jersey Monitor. Judge Rules Trump Congestion Pricing Action Unlawful
The MTA and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority sued the same day in the Southern District of New York. The case was assigned to Judge Lewis J. Liman.1Eno Transportation. Timeframe for Court Showdown on NYC Congestion Pricing Becomes Clear In March 2025, the Riders Alliance and the Sierra Club, represented by Earthjustice, filed their own suit and joined as intervenors.3Earthjustice. Federal Court Rules That Trump Administration’s Attempt to End Congestion Pricing Is Unlawful In April 2025, the New York City and New York State Departments of Transportation signed on as plaintiffs. The Adams administration told the court that the federal effort to cancel the toll “undermines the rule of law.”4Politico. Eric Adams Congestion Pricing Lawsuit On the other side were the U.S. Department of Transportation, the FHWA, and Secretary Duffy.
The Preliminary Injunction
On May 28, 2025, Judge Liman issued a preliminary injunction barring the Transportation Department from terminating the program or withholding federal funding and project approvals as Secretary Duffy had threatened in an April 21, 2025, follow-up letter. The judge found the MTA likely to succeed on the merits and found irreparable harm to state sovereignty, the bond market, and ongoing public works.5U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. MTA v. Duffy, Opinion6NY1. Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Against USDOT Over Congestion Pricing
The March 2026 Ruling
On March 3, 2026, Judge Liman issued a 149-page opinion granting summary judgment to the MTA, the Riders Alliance, and the Sierra Club. The ruling vacated both of Secretary Duffy’s termination letters as violations of the Administrative Procedure Act.2New Jersey Monitor. Judge Rules Trump Congestion Pricing Action Unlawful7NBC New York. Trump Congestion Pricing NYC Court Ruling
The court held that the Value Pricing Pilot Program agreement contained no termination clause allowing the Secretary to withdraw based on changed priorities, and that Duffy lacked authority to unilaterally rescind the program.5U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. MTA v. Duffy, Opinion The judge called the administration’s actions “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law,” noting the government cited no sufficient authority and did no environmental review before trying to cancel.7NBC New York. Trump Congestion Pricing NYC Court Ruling He rejected the government’s claim that its action was not a final, challengeable decision as “revisionist history,” citing Trump’s own social-media announcement and letters from federal officials granting wind-down extensions.2New Jersey Monitor. Judge Rules Trump Congestion Pricing Action Unlawful And he found that the government’s later arguments about financial hardship for drivers were post hoc rationalizations, because the February 19 letter had rested entirely on the claim that the program lacked statutory authority.
The Appeal
On May 1, 2026, Justice Department lawyers filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.8Politico Pro. The Trump Administration Appeals Congestion Pricing Ruling9Bloomberg. Trump Administration to Appeal Ruling on NYC Congestion Pricing As of mid-2026, no briefing schedule or oral argument date had been set, and no stay of the district court ruling had been reported. The program continues to operate while the appeal is pending.10NJ Spotlight News. NYC Congestion Pricing Back in Court as Trump Appeals Tolls Ruling
The Accidentally Leaked DOJ Memo
In April 2025, lawyers from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan accidentally uploaded an 11-page internal memo to the public court docket. Dated April 11, 2025, and addressed to a senior DOT trial attorney, the memo was written by three assistant U.S. attorneys assigned to defend the government.11Courthouse News Service. DOJ Filing Faults Congestion Pricing Case, Sparking Feud With Transportation Department It concluded there was “considerable litigation risk” in defending Secretary Duffy’s decision, calling the administration’s position “contrary to law, pretextual, procedurally arbitrary and capricious.” The attorneys said they could not identify a compelling legal argument that cordon pricing was unauthorized or that the program was unlawful for lacking a toll-free alternative, and they warned the administrative record was “exceedingly thin.”12Eno Transportation. Accidental Filing Airs Concerns on Congestion Pricing Litigation
A DOT spokeswoman called the lawyers “incompetent” and suggested the filing could be “legal malpractice” or “sabotage.” The attorneys were removed from the case but remained listed as counsel in later filings.11Courthouse News Service. DOJ Filing Faults Congestion Pricing Case, Sparking Feud With Transportation Department In May 2025, Judge Liman ruled the memo could not be used in court, finding the MTA’s lawyers had already raised the same arguments independently.13New York Times. NYC Congestion Pricing Memo
New Jersey’s Lawsuit
New Jersey’s case predates the Trump administration fight by more than a year. Then-Governor Phil Murphy sued the FHWA in federal court in Newark in July 2023, arguing the agency’s environmental assessment was inadequate, that a full Environmental Impact Statement was required instead of a Finding of No Significant Impact, and that Bergen County faced air pollution from traffic diverting to the George Washington Bridge.14NJ.com. Lawsuit Over Fee to Enter Lower Manhattan Could Be Headed to Mediation15New York Times. NJ Congestion Pricing Federal Court
On December 30, 2024, Judge Leo M. Gordon of the U.S. Court of International Trade granted partial summary judgment. He upheld most of the federal approvals but found the FHWA had acted arbitrarily by failing to adequately explain its mitigation funding commitments for New Jersey while setting specific commitments for the Bronx. The case was remanded.16Regional Plan Association. Status of New York Congestion Pricing Litigation
New Jersey has also pushed for a share of toll revenue to fund NJ Transit and PATH, which the MTA has rejected, citing internal studies showing it would produce only “minuscule increases in passenger numbers.” According to attorney John Reichman, New Jersey previously turned down a settlement offer reportedly worth “hundreds of millions of dollars.” The MTA has allocated about $1.4 million in mitigation funding to Bergen County.14NJ.com. Lawsuit Over Fee to Enter Lower Manhattan Could Be Headed to Mediation
Under Governor Mikie Sherrill, the state has signaled interest in settling. The two sides held a settlement conference on April 24, 2026, and a federal judge paused the litigation until June 10, 2026, to allow negotiations to continue.10NJ Spotlight News. NYC Congestion Pricing Back in Court as Trump Appeals Tolls Ruling
The Industry, Union, and Municipal Suits
At one point there were at least eight federal lawsuits trying to block the tolls.17NBC New York. Congestion Pricing NYC Start Date Lawsuit Most have been dismissed.
Trucking Association of New York
The Trucking Association of New York argued the truck tolls, then $24 to $36, were unconstitutional and unfairly targeted the industry, and sought an exemption or a cap at passenger-vehicle rates. Judge Liman first entered judgment for the defendants, and the association refiled with an amended complaint. On March 10, 2026, the court dismissed the case for good, finding the tolls were a “fair approximation of use” and not excessive relative to the benefits provided. The association said it would keep fighting the program.18Law360. NY Truckers Congestion Pricing Lawsuit Is Tossed for Good19NEFI. Federal Court Dismisses Trucking Association Challenge to NYC Congestion Pricing Plan
United Federation of Teachers and Staten Island
In January 2024, the United Federation of Teachers and the Staten Island Borough President sued in federal court, calling the program “regressive and discriminatory” and arguing the FHWA failed to adequately study environmental impacts on Staten Island, the Bronx, Upper Manhattan, and northern New Jersey. Their central theory was that the environmental assessment violated the National Environmental Policy Act.20ABC7 New York. Congestion Pricing Lawsuit UFT Staten Island In June 2024, Judge Liman issued a 113-page opinion rejecting the NEPA arguments in this and related suits, finding the four-year, 45,000-page administrative record showed the required “hard look” at environmental consequences. Some Commerce Clause and right-to-travel claims survived and remained pending.21Landline Media. Federal Judge Guts Lawsuits Challenging NYC’s Congestion Pricing
Town of Hempstead
The Town of Hempstead sued in Nassau County Supreme Court in November 2024, arguing the MTA had circumvented a 45-day public comment requirement and that the plan was a regressive tax on suburban communities. On June 18, 2026, Justice Arthur Engoron dismissed the case. The town’s attorneys initially failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, citing scheduling confusion. MTA Chairman Janno Lieber called the suit “frivolous.” Hempstead has said it will appeal and also has a separate case pending in the Eastern District of New York.22LI Herald. Supreme Court Judge Tosses Hempstead Town’s Congestion Pricing Lawsuit
Fort Lee and the Hudson Valley
In November 2023, Congressman Josh Gottheimer, Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, and a Fort Lee commuter filed a class action naming the MTA, the U.S. DOT, the FHWA, and others. The suit sought to stop the toll and compel a full environmental study covering New Jersey impacts.23Office of Congressman Gottheimer. Gottheimer, Fort Lee Mayor Sokolich Announce New Class Action Lawsuit In January 2025, a federal judge denied Fort Lee’s separate motion to intervene in the main litigation.24Law360. NJ Town Loses Bid to Join NYC Congestion Pricing Suit Earlier, in 2023, Judge Cathy Seibel dismissed a similar challenge from the county executives of Rockland and Orange counties, ruling that congestion pricing was not an illegal tax and did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Where the Litigation Stands
The program is fully operational in mid-2026, collecting its $9 peak toll and funding billions of dollars in transit work. The central legal question — whether the federal government can unilaterally pull the plug on a program that was approved, launched, and generating revenue — now rests with the Second Circuit. New Jersey’s case looks closer to a negotiated resolution than at any point since it was filed in 2023. Nearly every other suit has been dismissed or had its core claims rejected, leaving the Trump administration’s appeal as the last serious threat to the program’s survival.