Triangle Improvement Council v. Ritchie

In 1966 and 1967, West Virginia state authorities (defendants) obtained right-of-way approvals from the secretary of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) (the secretary) to construct an interstate highway. The construction project required relocation of low-income residents (the residents) (plaintiffs) of a Black ghetto in the City of Charleston called the Triangle. In 1968, Congress enacted amendments to the Federal-Aid Highway Act (the act) to ensure that individuals displaced by federal-highway construction projects were promptly and fairly relocated. Under the amendments, to gain the secretary’s approval for a construction project, state officials were required to provide satisfactory assurances that a sufficient number of affordable, safe, and sanitary housing units were available for relocation before any individuals were displaced. The act defined satisfactory assurances to include the submission of a mandatory, comprehensive relocation plan outlining rehousing procedures, analyzing potential problems, and demonstrating that the relocation would involve as little hardship on the residents as possible. The act required the secretary to approve plans at the right-of-way acquisition stage and again before construction began. Although West Virginia state officials promised the residents that adequate housing would be available upon relocation, the officials did not submit a comprehensive relocation plan after securing the 1966 and 1967 right-of-way approvals. Worried that adequate housing would not be available, the residents brought suit, insisting that the state authorities submit a relocation plan to the secretary before obtaining construction-phase approval. The residents contended that the analysis required by the plan demonstrated the lack of sufficient housing available to the residents upon displacement despite the state officials’ promises to the contrary. The state officials argued that they were not required to submit a plan. The district court denied the residents’ request for relief, finding that submission of the relocation plan was not required for projects already ongoing when the amendments to the act were enacted in 1968. Thereafter, regulations promulgated by the DOT clarified that the requirement applied to ongoing projects. The residents appealed the district court’s decision. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, and the full court denied rehearing en banc, concluding that the residents’ claim was moot because the expectation was that state officials would follow the postenactment policy before construction.