Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

New York Urban League, Inc. v. State of New York

71 F.3d 1031 (1995)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,500+ case briefs...

New York Urban League, Inc. v. State of New York

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

71 F.3d 1031 (1995)

Facts

The State of New York proposed a 20 percent rate increase for New York City’s subways and buses. The New York Urban League, Inc. (NYUL) (plaintiff) sued the state (defendant) under a U.S. Department of Transportation regulation, promulgated pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that prohibited discrimination under any program that received federal funding. NYUL alleged that the state’s allocation of funding between the city’s subway and bus systems and the commuter-rail system was discriminatory. Specifically, NYUL claimed that users of the subway and bus systems paid a higher share of maintenance costs for that system than users of the commuter rail paid to maintain the commuter-rail system. This was discriminatory according to NYUL because most users of the subway and bus systems were minorities and most users of the commuter rail were White. NYUL sought an injunction prohibiting the rate increase. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted NYUL a preliminary injunction. The court based its finding on what were known as farebox-recovery ratios. These ratios measured the portion of each system’s costs that were recovered through rider fares. The district court found that the proposed fare increase increased the farebox-recovery ratio of the subway and bus systems by 12.2 percent but only increased the farebox-recovery ratio of the commuter rails by under 3 percent. The state appealed, asserting that although its allocation of transportation funds resulted in the subway and bus systems subsidizing the commuter rail, users of those systems obtained benefits from such subsidization. Specifically, the state pointed to decreased traffic and pollution and increased usage of the subway and bus systems—and thus increased revenues—by commuter-rail riders who would otherwise drive into the city.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 545,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 545,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 545,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,500 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership