## Facts

- Civic associations and related plaintiffs opposed the expedited construction of the Three Sisters Bridge, an interstate highway bridge connecting Virginia and the District of Columbia.
- In earlier litigation, a federal appellate court enjoined construction until local planning requirements in the D.C. Code were satisfied.
- Congress responded by enacting § 23 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, directing that Interstate System routes in the District be constructed “notwithstanding” contrary law, court decisions, or administrative action.
- Section 23 required work on specified projects, including the Three Sisters Bridge, to commence within 30 days of enactment, while also stating construction must be carried out in accordance with “all applicable provisions” of Title 23 of the U.S. Code.
- Plaintiffs sued to enjoin federal and District officials from proceeding until they complied with asserted Title 23 planning and public-hearing requirements.
- The case was resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether § 23 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 required compliance with Title 23 planning and public-hearing requirements before construction of the Three Sisters Bridge could proceed.
2. How to interpret § 23’s instruction to build “notwithstanding” other law or court decisions, alongside its requirement to proceed in accordance with “all applicable” provisions of Title 23.
3. Whether § 23 superseded prior injunctions and local planning requirements that had blocked the project.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied injunctive relief.
- The court held § 23 mandated prompt commencement of the bridge project and did not make the broad, delay-producing planning and hearing steps urged by plaintiffs a condition precedent to construction.
- The court construed “all applicable provisions” of Title 23 as limited to requirements consistent with Congress’s directive for rapid commencement.
- The court treated § 23 as superseding conflicting legal requirements and prior judicial restraints that would impede the congressionally mandated schedule.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress commands a specific project proceed “notwithstanding” contrary law or court decisions and sets a firm timetable, courts interpret related statutory cross-references to avoid frustrating that command.
- The term “applicable” in a statutory directive to comply with another code’s provisions can function as a limitation, excluding requirements that conflict with the enacting statute’s express purpose and deadlines.
- A later, specific congressional mandate may displace earlier injunctions and conflicting statutory constraints to the extent necessary to carry out the mandate.

## Conclusion

The district court declined to halt the Three Sisters Bridge project, holding that Congress’s 1968 directive required prompt construction and that the referenced Title 23 compliance obligations did not include the expansive pre-construction planning and hearing requirements sought by plaintiffs where those steps would defeat the statutory timetable.


D.C. Fed’n of Civic Ass’ns v. Volpe, 308 F. Supp. 423 (D.D.C. 1970)