Harrisburg Coalition Against Ruining the Environment v. Volpe

Judge Nealon first held that the plaintiffs had failed to produce sufficient evidence 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 for construction 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 to the 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 order to 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 on a 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 that the 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 Act and 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 these two statutes. Because the secretary's decision did not comply with the procedural requirements of these acts, the court remanded the case to the secretary of transportation to issue a decision regarding the construction of the project in accordance with the proper procedures.