## Facts

- Advocacy groups and individual New York City transit riders sued New York State officials and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) challenging regional transit funding allocations.
- Plaintiffs alleged that New York City subway and bus riders (predominantly minority) bore a higher operating-cost share than suburban commuter-rail riders (predominantly white).
- Plaintiffs relied on U.S. Department of Transportation Title VI regulations, asserting the funding and fare structure had an unlawful disparate impact.
- While the case was pending, the MTA planned a 20% fare increase for New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) subways and buses.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to block the fare increase; the district court granted relief, relying significantly on “farebox-recovery ratios” showing a larger increase in NYCTA cost recovery than in commuter lines.
- The MTA argued that any cross-subsidy had to be assessed in a systemwide context, including claimed benefits to NYCTA riders from maintaining commuter-rail service (e.g., reduced congestion and pollution and increased NYCTA ridership and revenue).

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs made the showing required for a preliminary injunction barring the MTA from implementing the NYCTA fare increase.
2. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on their Title VI disparate-impact challenge to the overall allocation of transit funds, given the limited preliminary record and the need for a systemwide analysis.
3. Whether the district court erred by focusing on the NYCTA fare increase in isolation rather than evaluating the broader financial and administrative context of the regional funding scheme.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction that blocked the NYCTA fare increase.
- The court held plaintiffs had not made the requisite showing for preliminary injunctive relief.
- The court concluded the district court’s likelihood-of-success analysis lacked adequate support because it did not examine the broader context of the challenged allocation of funds.
- The ruling addressed only the propriety of preliminary relief and did not decide the ultimate merits of the Title VI claim.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires a showing of irreparable harm absent relief and a likelihood of success on the merits (as applied by the court in this appeal).
- When the underlying claim challenges a regional transit funding structure under Title VI disparate-impact regulations, the merits inquiry must address the total allocation of funds and relevant context, not a single fare change viewed alone.
- A preliminary finding of likely Title VI disparate impact must be supported by an adequate record that considers asserted burdens and claimed systemwide benefits and justifications.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit allowed the MTA to proceed with the NYCTA fare increase because plaintiffs did not establish, on the preliminary record, the necessary showing for emergency injunctive relief, particularly as to likely success on a Title VI disparate-impact challenge requiring systemwide evaluation of the funding allocation.


New York Urban League, Inc. v. State of New York, 71 F.3d 1031 (2d Cir. 1995)