Judge Skeptical of Trump Administration's Bid to Halt NYC Congestion Pricing

A federal judge questioned the government's rationale for trying to block the tolling program after it was already approved and implemented.

Jan. 28, 2026 at 7:23pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A federal judge grilled Trump administration lawyers about the U.S. government's continued opposition to New York City's congestion pricing tolls, but did not issue a ruling. The judge appeared skeptical of the administration's arguments, as the tolls remain in place for now. The legal battle over the fate of the traffic reduction plan continues, with additional court filings due on Feb. 6.

Why it matters

Congestion pricing is a first-of-its-kind program in the U.S. designed to reduce gridlock and fund public transit improvements in New York City. The Trump administration has repeatedly tried to block the program, raising concerns about its impact on the regional economy, but the judge seemed unconvinced by the government's rationale for trying to halt an initiative that has already been implemented and is generating revenue for transportation projects.

The details

During the three-hour hearing, Judge Lewis J. Liman questioned lawyers representing the U.S. Department of Transportation about the agency's attempts to stop the congestion pricing program, even after it had been thoroughly vetted and approved by the federal government during the Biden administration. The judge asked the government lawyers to explain their rationale, noting that it seemed 'ridiculous' to still be arguing about the program's analysis and whether the transportation secretary can simply overturn it.

  • The congestion pricing tolls began on January 5, 2025.
  • In the first year, the program raised $562 million, over $60 million more than expected.
  • Additional court filings from both sides are due on February 6, 2026.

The players

Judge Lewis J. Liman

The federal judge presiding over the case who appeared skeptical of the Trump administration's arguments against the congestion pricing program.

Kathy Hochul

The Governor of New York who has staunchly defended the congestion pricing program as both legal and effective.

Sean Duffy

The U.S. Transportation Secretary under the Trump administration who has threatened to withhold federal approval and funding from New York highway and transit projects if the congestion pricing toll is not canceled.

Janno Lieber

The chief executive of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the state agency that controls New York City's subways, buses, and commuter railroads and is operating the congestion pricing program.

Roberta Kaplan

A lawyer representing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority who argued that the federal government's attempts to abruptly kill congestion pricing, even after the state had begun to rely on toll revenue, were dangerous and antithetical to democracy.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Can the secretary enter a contract for repair of roads and then say, 'You know what, we changed our minds?'”

— Judge Lewis J. Liman (New York Times)

“President Trump is President Trump, not King Donald.”

— Roberta Kaplan, Lawyer for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York Times)

“It seems ridiculous that we're still arguing about whether the analysis done, you know, years and years ago, was actually accurate, and whether the secretary of transportation can just overturn it.”

— Janno Lieber, Chief Executive of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York Times)

What’s next

The judge did not issue a ruling, and the tolls remain in place. Additional court filings from both sides are due on February 6, 2026.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing political battle over congestion pricing in New York City, with the Trump administration continuing to challenge a program that has already been implemented and is generating revenue for critical transportation improvements. The judge's skepticism of the government's arguments suggests the program may withstand the latest legal challenge, but the outcome remains uncertain as the legal fight continues.