this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2025
209 points (98.2% liked)

News

29372 readers
3532 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Lawyers for the federal government briefly published internal correspondence on Wednesday evening detailing a laundry list of flaws in the U.S. Department of Transportation’s legal strategy to shut down the MTA’s congestion pricing tolls.

The document, dated April 11, was mistakenly posted on the docket of the MTA’s federal lawsuit challenging U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s effort to kill the tolls by revoking federal approval. The internal 11-page letter, sent from attorneys in the Southern District of New York to a lawyer for the federal transportation department, was taken down less than an hour after it was erroneously put online. By Thursday afternoon, the attorneys were taken off the case while a transportation department spokesperson speculated they published the document as an act of sabatoge.

It marked a new, bizarre wrinkle in the legal back-and-forth between New York state and the Trump administration over the future of the Manhattan tolls — and sparked yet another round of recrimination within President Donald Trump's justice department.

Three assistant U.S. attorneys wrote in the internal letter that Duffy’s current argument to shut down the tolls isn’t likely to hold up in court. The program was approved under former President Joe Biden through a U.S. DOT pilot program – the Value Pricing Pilot Program – that allows local governments to impose tolls on federally funded roads. Duffy has argued he has the authority to rescind that approval, but the government attorneys were skeptical.

“It is unlikely that Judge [Lewis] Liman or further courts of review will accept the argument that [congestion pricing] was not a statutorily authorized ‘value pricing’ pilot” by the federal government, the letter states. “We have been unable to identify a compelling legal argument to support this position."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Oh for real. It’s great for pedestrians. The vast majority prefers it.