Dipping Into Highway Funds
For over sixty years, The New Hampshire Motor Transport Association (NHMTA)
has promoted the safety and reliability of the state's motor transport system.
So when they learned that the State planned to divert more than $15 million in
highway funds for the extension of a passenger railroad line from Lowell,
Massachusetts to Nashua, New Hampshire, they were outraged. Under New
Hampshire's constitution, highway funds - revenues raised from fuel
taxes, vehicle registration fees, and the like - must be spent exclusively
for the construction, reconstruction and maintenance of public highways within
the state. The NHMTA repeatedly pointed out to legislators and State
administrators that the proposed use of highway funds was unconstitutional. The
State forged ahead with the project anyway.
Standing up to the State
The NHMTA hired Preti Flaherty to block the State's action. Preti Flaherty
filed an injunction action, and after preliminary discovery, the case was
transferred to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. After extensive briefing, Preti
Flaherty successfully countered the State's arguments that railroads are
actually public highways, and that a commuter rail would
indirectly benefit highway users. In a unanimous decision, the Court
ruled that the Constitution meant what it said: that railroads are not highways,
and that the proposed use of highway funds to pay for the railroad was
prohibited as unconstitutional.
A Just Reward
Preti Flaherty convinced the court to go one unusual step further. The Court
ordered the State of New Hampshire to reimburse our client for the attorney fees
it had incurred in challenging the State's unlawful action, as a service to
all highway users.
