Plaintiff
Harrisburg Coalition Against Ruining the Environment, et al.
Defendant
John A. Volpe, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, et al.
Plaintiff's Claim
That the construction of two highways through a city park would deny equal housing and recreational opportunities to African American residents in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, and that the Department of Transportation's decision to locate the highways in this area did not comply with the requirements of federal statutes.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff
Robert J. Sugarman
Chief Defense Lawyer
Thomas McKevitt
Judge
William J. Nealon
Place
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Date of Decision
12 May 1971
Decision
That the plaintiffs failed to show that the construction of the highways would deny equal housing and recreational opportunities to African American residents, but that the secretary of transportation had to reconsider its determination regarding the location of the highways under the appropriate federal statutes.
Significance
The case illustrates how difficult it is to establish an intent to discriminate, which is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. Department of Transportation, theState of Pennsylvania, and the City of Harrisburg began discussions concerning the construction of Interstate Route 81 and the Harrisburg River Relief Route through the city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. These discussions eventually lead to the decision to construct the highways through a city park in Harrisburg. In 1971, following the decision, a group of citizens and an environmental group filed a lawsuit against the secretary of transportation, the stateof Pennsylvania, and the city of Harrisburg in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs sought an injunction prohibiting the construction of the highways through Wildwood Park, a city park locatedin Harrisburg. The plaintiffs claimed that the proposed construction violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. They asserted that by closing down the park, the construction would deny African American citizens the same right to participate in recreational activities as afforded white citizens in other parts of the city. They also allegedthat the defendants' decision to locate the construction through Wildwood Park did not meet the requirements of several federal statutes. Statutes cited included the Department of Transportation Act, the Federal Aid Highway Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. After holding hearings on the issues, Judge William Nealon rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the proposed construction discriminated against African American citizens. However, he also concluded that the secretary of transportation had failed to comply with the Department of Transportation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
No Evidence of Discriminatory Effect
Judge Nealon first held that the plaintiffs had failed to produce sufficientevidence to support their claim that the proposed construction had a discriminatory effect on African American citizens of Harrisburg. The plaintiffs argued that the city agreed to give portions of Wildwood Park to Pennsylvania forconstruction of the highways partly because African American citizens were the predominant users of the park. The plaintiffs claimed that this violated their right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment tothe U.S. Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a state or local government from discriminating against groups of people based on so-called "suspect classifications," such as race or national origin. In orderto prove discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff must establish that the governmental officers acted with a discriminatory intent and that the action of those officers had a discriminatory impact ona particular race.
Judge Nealon rejected this argument, noting that there was no evidence that the city officials were motivated by racial prejudice in agreeing to the construction. He also noted that the evidence presented by the parties showed thatthe park was used equally by both African American and white citizens. Thus,he concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a racial discrimination intent, and rejected the plaintiffs' equal protection claim.
However, Judge Nealon agreed with the plaintiffs that the secretary of transportation, in deciding to construct the highways through Wildwood Park, had failed to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transportation Actand the National Environmental Policy Act. The secretary of transportation failed because he did not document findings regarding the impact of the highways on recreational opportunities and on the environment, as required by thesetwo statutes. Because the secretary's decision did not comply with the procedural requirements of these acts, the court remanded the case to the secretaryof transportation to issue a decision regarding the construction of the project in accordance with the proper procedures.
Impact
Judge Nealon's decision had little long-term impact for citizens in the vicinity of Wildwood Park. After the court's decision, the secretary documented the findings required by the Department of Transportation Act and the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act. Thus, the plaintiffs' victory was short-lived. Withrespect to the court's decision regarding the plaintiffs' discrimination claim, the Supreme Court later clarified the standard for evaluating equal protection claims based on racial discrimination in the 1977 case Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.
Related Cases
Harrisburg Coalition Against Ruining the Environment, et al.
Defendant
John A. Volpe, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, et al.
Plaintiff's Claim
That the construction of two highways through a city park would deny equal housing and recreational opportunities to African American residents in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, and that the Department of Transportation's decision to locate the highways in this area did not comply with the requirements of federal statutes.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff
Robert J. Sugarman
Chief Defense Lawyer
Thomas McKevitt
Judge
William J. Nealon
Place
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Date of Decision
12 May 1971
Decision
That the plaintiffs failed to show that the construction of the highways would deny equal housing and recreational opportunities to African American residents, but that the secretary of transportation had to reconsider its determination regarding the location of the highways under the appropriate federal statutes.
Significance
The case illustrates how difficult it is to establish an intent to discriminate, which is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. Department of Transportation, theState of Pennsylvania, and the City of Harrisburg began discussions concerning the construction of Interstate Route 81 and the Harrisburg River Relief Route through the city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. These discussions eventually lead to the decision to construct the highways through a city park in Harrisburg. In 1971, following the decision, a group of citizens and an environmental group filed a lawsuit against the secretary of transportation, the stateof Pennsylvania, and the city of Harrisburg in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs sought an injunction prohibiting the construction of the highways through Wildwood Park, a city park locatedin Harrisburg. The plaintiffs claimed that the proposed construction violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. They asserted that by closing down the park, the construction would deny African American citizens the same right to participate in recreational activities as afforded white citizens in other parts of the city. They also allegedthat the defendants' decision to locate the construction through Wildwood Park did not meet the requirements of several federal statutes. Statutes cited included the Department of Transportation Act, the Federal Aid Highway Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. After holding hearings on the issues, Judge William Nealon rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the proposed construction discriminated against African American citizens. However, he also concluded that the secretary of transportation had failed to comply with the Department of Transportation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
No Evidence of Discriminatory Effect
Judge Nealon first held that the plaintiffs had failed to produce sufficientevidence to support their claim that the proposed construction had a discriminatory effect on African American citizens of Harrisburg. The plaintiffs argued that the city agreed to give portions of Wildwood Park to Pennsylvania forconstruction of the highways partly because African American citizens were the predominant users of the park. The plaintiffs claimed that this violated their right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment tothe U.S. Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a state or local government from discriminating against groups of people based on so-called "suspect classifications," such as race or national origin. In orderto prove discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff must establish that the governmental officers acted with a discriminatory intent and that the action of those officers had a discriminatory impact ona particular race.
Judge Nealon rejected this argument, noting that there was no evidence that the city officials were motivated by racial prejudice in agreeing to the construction. He also noted that the evidence presented by the parties showed thatthe park was used equally by both African American and white citizens. Thus,he concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a racial discrimination intent, and rejected the plaintiffs' equal protection claim.
However, Judge Nealon agreed with the plaintiffs that the secretary of transportation, in deciding to construct the highways through Wildwood Park, had failed to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transportation Actand the National Environmental Policy Act. The secretary of transportation failed because he did not document findings regarding the impact of the highways on recreational opportunities and on the environment, as required by thesetwo statutes. Because the secretary's decision did not comply with the procedural requirements of these acts, the court remanded the case to the secretaryof transportation to issue a decision regarding the construction of the project in accordance with the proper procedures.
Impact
Judge Nealon's decision had little long-term impact for citizens in the vicinity of Wildwood Park. After the court's decision, the secretary documented the findings required by the Department of Transportation Act and the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act. Thus, the plaintiffs' victory was short-lived. Withrespect to the court's decision regarding the plaintiffs' discrimination claim, the Supreme Court later clarified the standard for evaluating equal protection claims based on racial discrimination in the 1977 case Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.
Related Cases
- Evans v. Abney, 396 U.S. 435 (1970).
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971).
- Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217 (1971).
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
User Comments Add a comment…