Case: City of Boston v. Duffy
1:26-cv-14419 | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Filed Date: Sept. 28, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case concerns the federal government withdrawing an infrastructure improvement grant from the City of Boston. The case was assigned to Richard G. Stearns in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On September 28, 2026, the City of Boston filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)—a sub-agency within the DOT—and the FTA’s Acting Deputy Administrator and the Secretary of Transportation in their official capacities. The complaint alleged that the federal government unlawfully withdrew a $20 million grant awarded to the City under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), undermining years of planning.
In August 2022, Boston received a federal grant to fund critical infrastructure improvements in the Roxbury neighborhood. The project was designed to address decades of underinvestment, advance environmental sustainability, and incorporate innovative technologies. A minor component of the project—less than 1% of the total grant—included electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, which the DOT’s Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) had explicitly encouraged. Over three years, the City worked closely with the DOT and FTA to prepare for the project, including onboarding as an FTA grant recipient, engaging with community stakeholders, and coordinating with state and regional partners.
In September 2025, however, the DOT abruptly withdrew the grant, citing new agency "priorities" that favored "traditional forms of energy" and opposed EV charging infrastructure. The withdrawal letter provided no explanation for how these new priorities aligned with the statutory criteria–including improving environmental sustainability and adopting innovative technologies or techniques–or the NOFO, nor did it account for the City’s substantial reliance on the funding. The City alleged that the withdrawal was part of a broader effort by the Executive Branch to freeze or rescind IIJA funds that supported environmental sustainability and EV infrastructure. Despite the City’s attempts to negotiate with the DOT to preserve the grant, it received no substantive response.
The complaint asserted five federal causes of action. First, the City alleged that the DOT’s withdrawal of the grant violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The defendants failed to engage in reasoned decision-making, ignored the statutory criteria for the grant, and disregarded the City’s reliance interests. Second, the City claimed that the withdrawal exceeded the defendants’ statutory authority and was therefore contrary to law under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and (2)(C), as it conflicted with the IIJA’s requirement for a "discernible and transparent" methodology for awarding funds. Third, the complaint argued that the defendants’ actions violated the separation of powers doctrine by overriding Congress’s legislative intent and appropriations authority. Fourth, the City contended that the withdrawal violated the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article II, § 3), which requires the Executive Branch to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress, including the IIJA. Finally, the City asserted that the defendants acted beyond their statutory authority by withdrawing the grant in a manner inconsistent with the IIJA and the NOFO.
To remedy these alleged violations, the City sought multiple forms of relief. It requested a declaratory judgment that the withdrawal was unlawful, as well as an order vacating and setting aside the decision. The City also requested a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from implementing the withdrawal or reallocating the funds. Additionally, it sought an order preserving the $20 million funding pending resolution of the litigation and tolling the grant’s obligation and expenditure deadlines to ensure the City could receive and expend the funds as intended by Congress. The complaint further requested that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce compliance with its orders and award reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Grace Honig (10/23/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74857922/parties/city-of-boston-v-duffy/
Broom, Thomas (Massachusetts)
Constas, Christina M (Massachusetts)
Corrigan, Megan (Massachusetts)
Crawford, Cassandra L. (Massachusetts)
Dinning, Sam (Massachusetts)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74857922/city-of-boston-v-duffy/
Last updated Nov. 8, 2026, 3:10 a.m.
Docket for: City of Boston v. Duffy
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 28, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
City of Boston
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of Massachusetts 1:26-cv-14419
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Environmental Justice and Resources:
Case Summary of City of Boston v. Duffy, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48509/ (last updated 10/23/2026).