## Facts

- Tennessee planned and funded Route 840 South, a roughly 77-mile highway bypass around Nashville; the dispute focused on a 53-mile corridor.
- The project did not use federal highway funds, but certain discrete components required federal approvals (including permits for stream crossings and wetland fills and approval for a right-of-way crossing a historic scenic roadway).
- A community association sued federal and state transportation officials, claiming the federal involvement made the corridor a “major Federal action” under NEPA requiring federal NEPA documentation (FONSI or EIS) in response to a state-prepared environmental assessment.
- After an earlier appeal, the case was remanded for determination whether the corridor constituted a “major Federal action” requiring FHWA action on the state’s environmental assessment.
- On remand, the association moved for a preliminary injunction to halt construction; the district court denied relief for failure to show a likelihood of success on the “major Federal action” issue.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the association failed to show that construction of the 53-mile corridor was a “major Federal action” triggering NEPA duties.
2. Whether limited federal permits and approvals for discrete elements of a state-funded highway can federalize the entire corridor for NEPA purposes.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding, on the record at the preliminary-injunction stage, that the corridor was not shown to be a “major Federal action.”
- Because the association did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits, the denial of preliminary injunctive relief was warranted.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA’s EIS requirement applies only to “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” and the threshold question is the degree of federal control, responsibility, or funding over the challenged undertaking.
- Discrete federal permits or approvals connected to a state-controlled, state-funded project do not automatically convert the entire project into a “major Federal action.”
- In reviewing denial of a preliminary injunction, the appellate court asks whether the district court abused its discretion, including whether it applied the correct legal standard and whether its factual findings were clearly erroneous.
- Failure to show likelihood of success on the merits may be dispositive against preliminary injunctive relief, particularly when the alleged federal role is ancillary to the overall project.

## Conclusion

The court upheld denial of an injunction stopping construction of a state-funded highway corridor because the association did not show that limited, component-specific federal approvals amounted to federal control over the corridor sufficient to trigger NEPA obligations for the project as a whole.


Sw. Williamson Cnty. Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. Slater, 243 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 2001)