Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, two fair housing organizations in New Orleans and five African-American homeowners, claimed that a program to help homeowners rebuild after hurricanes Katrina and Rita employed a grant formula that violated the anti-discriminatory provisions of the Fair Housing Act. At issue was whether the district court properly denied plaintiffs' first motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and injunction to enjoin defendants' actions related to the Louisiana Recovery Authority's Road Home Homeowner Assistance program. Also at issue was whether the district court properly granted plaintiffs' second motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction where the district court denied the initial request for a TRO and injunction. The court held that the district court properly denied the initially requested TRO and injunction where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. The court also held that the district court's grant of plaintiffs' second motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction was improper where the second motion also failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.

Plaintiffs challenged a decision of the Surface Transportation Board ("STB") alleging that the purchase by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation ("MassDOT") of railroad track and other rail assets from CSX Transportation reserved a permanent, exclusive freight easement over the track. At issue was whether MassDOT's purchase was a "railroad line" that required STB authorization or exemption under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 ("ICCTA"). The court upheld STB's decision where STB's decision reflects a reasonable interpretation of the ICCTA and the term "railroad line" as used therein.

Petitioner, CSI Aviation Services, Inc. ("CSI"), petitioned for review of an order where the Department of Transportation ("DOT") ordered CSI to cease and desist from acting as a broker of air-charter services for the federal government. At issue was whether DOT properly concluded that the air charter brokers that operate under a General Services Administration ("GSA") contract engaged in indirect air transportation and so required certification from DOT despite the statutory provision that required certification only for those who provide air transportation as a common carrier. The court held that the petition for review was granted where the court could not conclude that the agency's cease and desist order was anything other than arbitrary and capricious when DOT failed to explain its reading of the statute. The court also held that the proper course of action was to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.