Saint Paul Branch of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. United States Department of Transportation

764 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (2011)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Saint Paul Branch of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. United States Department of Transportation

United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
764 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (2011)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

The Saint Paul Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); Community Stabilization Project; Aurora/Saint Anthony Neighborhood Development Corporation; Shear Pleasure, Incorporated; Metro Bar & Grill, Incorporated d/b/a Arnellia’s; Carolyn Brown; Deborah Montgomery; Michael Wright; Leetta Douglas; and Gloria Presley Massey (the neighborhood group) (plaintiffs) opposed the construction of the Central Corridor Light Rail transit project (the project) planned and approved by the United States Department of Transportation, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Metropolitan Council (the agencies) (defendants). The project comprised 11 miles of light-rail line and 18 new stations. The agencies completed a thorough analysis of the project as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The agencies prepared a final environmental-impact statement (EIS) after producing several drafts. The EIS indicated that there would be no disproportionate adverse effects on minority populations and that the substantial benefits of the project would outweigh any potential adverse impacts. The new project was going to affect the Rondo neighborhood of St. Paul, which was predominantly Black, so the agencies specifically considered how the previous construction of I-94 through the area had devastated the local community. The agencies also considered comments from the public on the importance of maintaining community cohesion and the character of the local neighborhoods. The project was intended to enhance pedestrian activity in the area and increase connectivity between neighborhoods. The neighborhood group brought an action against the agencies seeking an order that the agencies prepare an adequate EIS and an injunction against further construction of the project. Both the neighborhood group and the agencies moved for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Frank, J.)

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 810,000 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 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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 810,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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