Manhattan’s $9-a-day congestion toll just survived its biggest legal scare yet.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration’s attempt to shut down New York’s congestion pricing program was unlawful, keeping in place the toll that has charged drivers entering Manhattan south of 60th Street since January 2025. The decision preserves a crucial revenue stream intended to fund subway and bus upgrades and blocks the federal transportation secretary from unilaterally yanking approvals that local officials say are already locked in. For New Yorkers, that means the cameras stay on and the tolls keep coming while the court fight continues.
In a 149-page opinion, Liman concluded that the U.S. Department of Transportation did not have the authority to rescind the Value Pricing Pilot Program approval or strip the MTA of its tolling power, according to Reuters. Local coverage highlighted Liman’s line that congestion pricing “was the product of a democratic process” and that “the democratic process worked,” language transit advocates greeted as a pointed rejection of what they saw as federal overreach.
What the ruling does
The decision secures the MTA’s claim to the money collected by the central-business-district toll, which officials say is already being used to modernize signals, purchase electric buses and support the agency’s broader capital plan. The program has generated hundreds of millions in 2025 revenue and continued into 2026, according to reporting by amNewYork. City and state leaders have repeatedly said that without those dollars, major transit projects would be delayed or abandoned outright.
How we got here
The legal showdown began in February 2025, when Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy rescinded federal approval and warned that federal funding could be withheld unless New York pulled the plug on the tolls. The MTA sued in response, and Judge Liman temporarily barred the department from taking punitive funding steps last May while the case moved forward, according to reporting by The Associated Press. From there, the litigation churned through dueling summary judgment motions and interventions from environmental and local agencies, setting the stage for Tuesday’s ruling.
Legal implications and next steps
At the heart of the case were questions under the Administrative Procedure Act and the scope of federal approval: the plaintiffs argued the rescission was arbitrary and outside the secretary’s statutory authority, while the government insisted it retained oversight of federal highway approvals. Public court records and case summaries show both sides fought the issues through summary judgment briefing, and the losing party could now seek review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to documents compiled by the Civil Rights Clearinghouse. Legal observers say the ruling may limit how far future administrations can go in retroactively clawing back previously granted approvals without clear backing from Congress.
Transit advocates wasted no time cheering the outcome. “It stops a vengeful federal government from punishing working New Yorkers,” Riders Alliance spokesperson Danny Pearlstein said, as reported by Streetsblog. City and state officials say the program will keep funding planned improvements while any appeal plays out in the courts.
.jpg){kind=link}