Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

D.C. Fed'n of Civic Ass'ns v. Volpe

Citation: 1 ELR 20539
No. No. 23,870, 434 F.2d 436/1 ERC 1316/(D.C. Cir., 04/06/1970) Rev'g & remanding 308 F. Supp. 423

Section 23 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 construed as not exempting the Three Sisters Bridge and three other District of Columbia Interstate Highway projects from the planning requirements of federal highway law, including the public hearing requirements. Were the statute interpreted as denying D.C. residents the "important personal right to contest disreptive highway projects" which is enjoyed by residents of all other areas of the country, the statute would be found unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection of the law within the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case is remanded to the district court for an expedited hearing to determine whether the planning requirements of federal highway law applicable to this project have been fulfilled. In aid of remand the Court finds the dual hearing requirements of Policy and Procedure Memorandum 20-8 applicable to the project.

Counsel for Plaintiff:
Roberts B. Owen
Gerald P. Norton
Covington & Burling
888 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 293-3300

Counsel for Federal Defendants:
Thomas L. McKevitt
Thomas L. Flannery
Shiro Kashiwa
Joseph M. Hannon
Edmund B. Clark
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.
(202) 737-8200

Counsel for Defendants District of Columbia:
John R. Hess
Charles T. Duncan
Hubert B. Pair
Richard W. Barton Assistant Corporation Counsel
District Building
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 628-6000

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT and MacKINNON, Circuit Judges.