Preemption
Oral Argument Scheduled
04/04/17 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
Oral argument in
our challenge
to the Surface
Transportation Board’s Declaratory Order that
preempts CEQA actions from challenging the HSR
project, is being rescheduled to June or July. A
hearing will not be held on April 18.
CEQA Preemption Appeal Fully Briefed
05/18/16 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
The appeal of the CEQA Preemption Order by the
federal Surface Transportation Board for California
HSR is now fully briefed. Oral argument has not yet
been scheduled. The briefs are all posted on
the STB
page.
Opening Brief Filed in STB Appeal
12/07/15 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
TRANSDEF and its
allies Kings
County, Kings County Farm Bureau, California Citizens
for High-Speed Rail Accountability, Community
Coalition on High-Speed Rail, California Rail
Foundation, and Dignity Health today filed the Opening Brief in
their appeal of the federal Surface Transportation
Board’s Declaratory Order. That decision eliminated
the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s need to
comply with CEQA, due to the STB’s assertion of
federal preemption of all federal, state, and local
regulations pertaining to interstate railroads. See
the Briefs.
TRANSDEF Files STB Challenge
02/09/15 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
In the second of two
lawsuits filed today, TRANSDEF joined a coalition of
non-profits and Central Valley county governments
to challenge the decision of the federal
Surface Transportation Board (STB) preempting the
application of CEQA to California’s HSR project.
In what we consider to be a shocking use of state
power, the California Attorney General has
previously sought to eliminate the application of
CEQA to the state’s HSR project.
On October 9, 2014 the CHSRA petitioned the STB to block California courts from issuing injunctions that could stop construction of the HSR project. In an ugly turn of events, the STB issued a ruling on December 12, 2014 that blocked not only injunctions but all application of CEQA to the HSR project. Read More...
On October 9, 2014 the CHSRA petitioned the STB to block California courts from issuing injunctions that could stop construction of the HSR project. In an ugly turn of events, the STB issued a ruling on December 12, 2014 that blocked not only injunctions but all application of CEQA to the HSR project. Read More...
CHSRA Declares Independence from CEQA
10/09/14 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
In a move that screams
desperation, the California High-Speed Rail Authority
filed a petition with the federal Surface
Transportation Board for a declaratory order that
would prevent any California court from issuing an
injunction to stop the construction of the
Fresno-Bakersfield portion of the project. CHSRA
wants to hide behind federal preemption. See
this page.
By running to the feds for protection, CHSRA has told the world it cannot and will not play by California rules.
In an earlier move seeking to protect its claim to federal preemption of environmental laws, CHSRA asked the Supreme Court to depublish the appellate decision in Town of Atherton II. See bottom of this page.
By running to the feds for protection, CHSRA has told the world it cannot and will not play by California rules.
In an earlier move seeking to protect its claim to federal preemption of environmental laws, CHSRA asked the Supreme Court to depublish the appellate decision in Town of Atherton II. See bottom of this page.
CHSRA Tries to Ditch CEQA
09/22/14 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
After losing part of
an appellate
decision,
the California High-Speed Rail Authority filed a
request with the California Supreme Court today,
asking it to depublish the 7/31/14 ruling. That
would mean no other court could consider the
ruling to be precedent, thereby making it easier
to argue that CEQA doesn’t apply to railroad
projects that are under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Surface Transportation Board. All the
papers are posted at the bottom of
this
page.
Court of Appeal Hits HSR Critics Hard
07/31/14 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
The Third District
Court of Appeal issued rulings in the
Atherton II
appeal and the Authority’s
Extraordinary
Writ petition recently. Both of them
were very hard on HSR critics. See the posts at
the bottom of the pages for links to the rulings
and brief explanations.
COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWS HIGH-SPEED RAIL TO VIOLATE BOND MEASURE
The Third District Court of Appeal late yesterday overturned two trial rulings that had hamstrung California’s still-embattled High-Speed Rail project. The Court ruled that "The Legislature appropriated the bond proceeds based on the preliminary funding plan, however deficient, and there is no present duty to redo the plan."
Plaintiff's lead counsel, Michael Brady, was disappointed with the ruling. He said "The voters approved Proposition 1A only because it included stringent requirements to protect the state from financial risk. The Court ruled that although the project did not meet the requirements, taxpayers have no remedy now. They can only sue after many more tens of millions of dollars are spent on design and analysis.”
Stuart Flashman, co-counsel added, "The court has essentially allowed the Authority to ignore promises it, and the legislature, made to California’s voters. It bodes ill for voters’ willingness to trust such promises in the future. Supreme Court review appears warranted.” Read More...
COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWS HIGH-SPEED RAIL TO VIOLATE BOND MEASURE
The Third District Court of Appeal late yesterday overturned two trial rulings that had hamstrung California’s still-embattled High-Speed Rail project. The Court ruled that "The Legislature appropriated the bond proceeds based on the preliminary funding plan, however deficient, and there is no present duty to redo the plan."
Plaintiff's lead counsel, Michael Brady, was disappointed with the ruling. He said "The voters approved Proposition 1A only because it included stringent requirements to protect the state from financial risk. The Court ruled that although the project did not meet the requirements, taxpayers have no remedy now. They can only sue after many more tens of millions of dollars are spent on design and analysis.”
Stuart Flashman, co-counsel added, "The court has essentially allowed the Authority to ignore promises it, and the legislature, made to California’s voters. It bodes ill for voters’ willingness to trust such promises in the future. Supreme Court review appears warranted.” Read More...