The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision dismissing challenges from two local counties to the New York City congestion pricing program, which took effect on June 2024 and imposes tolls for vehicle travel in Manhattan below 60^th Street.

The plaintiffs asserted that the NYC Tolling Program imposes an unauthorized tax in violation of the New York Constitution and violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the New York and U.S. Constitutions. They also claimed that the program unconstitutionally restricts the right to travel and violates the Due Process Clauses of the New York and U.S. Constitutions and violated the Excessive Fines Clauses of the New York and U.S. Constitutions.

The district court had granted a motion to dismiss the claims, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to state claims on which the court could grant relief. The appeals court affirmed that decision.

The appeals court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to allege that congestion pricing violates the right to travel. The court said the program does not create invidious distinctions among drivers or impose more than a minor restriction on the right to travel, so the court used a standard of reasonableness in reviewing the legality of the program.

Additionally, the appeals court held the plaintiffs failed to allege that the toll is an unreasonable user fee or an unconstitutionally excessive fine.

Further, the appeals court ruled plaintiffs had failed to state Due Process or Equal Protection claims because the congestion-pricing program is rationally related to New York’s legitimate interests in raising funds for mass transit and reducing vehicular congestion.

The NYC congestion pricing program is the first in the nation, and this decision will likely encourage other jurisdictions to consider imposing similar tolling programs for commercial and personal vehicles traveling in their city centers.

Previously, a federal district court in New York issued an opinion dismissing the Trucking Association of New York's lawsuit challenging the NYC congestion pricing program. TANY argued that the pricing program violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution because trucks comprise only 4% of the traffic entering Manhattan but pay a higher toll than any other type of vehicle. Also, trucks must pay each time they enter the tolling area while cars are charged once per day.

The court held that the tolling provisions were a "fair approximation of use" of the streets by trucks, which requires only a lenient standard of reasonableness. Also, the court found the tolls were not excessive in relation to the benefits conferred.

That same federal judge separately ruled in March that the U.S. Department of Transportation has no authority to stop the New York City congestion pricing program for cars, trucks, and buses. That opinion denied claims made by DOT that the program violated several federal statutes.

Finally, the Manhattan federal judge tossed New York State Assemblyman Jake Blumencranz's lawsuit seeking to derail congestion pricing, saying the lawmaker lacks standing to sue, and his claims are moot anyway since the judge voided the U.S. Department of Transportation's attempt to purportedly terminate the program.

New York City has claimed in the program’s first year congestion pricing raised $468 million for the Metropolitan Transit Authority, led to an 11 percent drop in vehicle entries and a 4.6 percent improvement in vehicle speeds. NYC also claimed that greenhouse gas emissions decreased 6.1 percent in the congestion pricing zone in Manhattan below 60th Street.