IRC Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Virgin Trains Ruling
Update July 16, 2020: The United States has asked for an additional 30 day extension of time for filing the brief until August 21st. Indian River County is not opposing the request. The extension should not affect the Supreme Court conference date of September 29, 2020 to discuss the case.
Indian River County has filed a brief (writ of certiorari) asking the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling against the
U.S. Supreme Court
county’s lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Transportation and Virgin Trains, USA.
The next step will be to see if the government and All Aboard Florida file briefs in opposition or request extensions to file briefs.
Read the Brief Here Indian River County Petition
Lawsuit History
Indian River County (IRC) filed a Federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Transportation over the issue of $2.7B in tax-exempt private activity bonds for construction of the higher-speed passenger train Virgin Trains/Brightline.Both a federal court and a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that the bonds were permissible. In January 2020, the IRC Commission voted 4-1 to end further appeals.
Residents then raised $200K themselves for the county to pursue its case before the high court. The county could also use a remaining $400K it had previously allocated for legal fees if the Supreme Court takes the case.
Read the Brief Here Indian River County Petition
Back in late March 2020, Virgin Trains USA, the parent company of the Brightline express train, laid off 250 of its South Florida workers after announcing it was suspending service due to coronavirus concerns. Brightline says it will be several months before services resumes. No date was provided.
The company continues to build phase 2 of its train service from West Palm Beach to Orlando. Brightline says plans to build stations in PortMiami, Aventura and Boca Raton are still on track.
Indian River County Attorney Dylan Reingold says, “The county’s petition should give the Supreme Court pause for consideration.
The brief laid out how the courts improperly deferred to the Department of Transportation’s informal views without finding the statute ambiguous or applying the traditional statutory interpretive tools used by the courts,” he said.
