By Ginika Igboke
California has withdrawn its federal lawsuit against the Trump administration over the cancellation of $4 billion in funding for the state’s long-delayed high-speed rail project, marking a pause—though not an end—to the legal battle over the controversial rail line.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on Dec. 23 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The dismissal was filed without prejudice, meaning the state retains the option to refile the lawsuit at a later date if circumstances change.
The move came roughly two weeks after U.S. District Judge Dale Drozd rejected an argument from the U.S. Department of Justice that the case should have been brought before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims instead of district court. That ruling cleared a procedural hurdle for California, but the authority ultimately chose to step back from the litigation—for now.
The dispute stems from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s decision in July to withdraw federal funding from the high-speed rail project, which is intended to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles. Federal officials said the project lacked a credible plan for completion, particularly for a major segment in California’s Central Valley.
President Donald Trump and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy have repeatedly criticized the project, referring to it as a “train to nowhere” and arguing that years of delays and cost overruns make it an unwise investment of federal dollars.
California voters initially approved a $10 billion bond to fund the project in 2008. At the time, the rail system was projected to cost $33 billion and be completed by 2020. Since then, the scope and cost of the project have expanded significantly. Current estimates place the total cost between $89 billion and $128 billion, with completion now projected for 2033.
Despite the delays and ballooning budget, the High-Speed Rail Authority says progress has been made. According to the agency, 50 major structures—including bridges, overpasses, underpasses, and viaducts—have been completed, along with approximately 70 miles of guideway in the Central Valley.
The authority originally filed its lawsuit on July 17, arguing that the federal funding withdrawal was unlawful and politically motivated. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, described the move at the time as a “political stunt to punish California,” accusing the Trump administration of retaliating against the state.
In its legal filings, the authority pointed to what it described as a pattern of political retaliation, citing the Trump administration’s earlier attempt during his first term to revoke high-speed rail funding shortly after California sued to block his emergency declaration for border wall construction.
State officials have maintained that the project has met all federal requirements under existing agreements. The authority cited multiple federal reviews, including one conducted as recently as February, that concluded the project was in compliance with its obligations.
While stepping away from the lawsuit, the authority has signaled a shift in strategy. Last week, it announced plans to pursue alternative funding sources to keep the project moving forward. On Dec. 19, CEO Ian Choudri said the agency launched a formal procurement process aimed at attracting private investors and developers.
Choudri said the effort is designed to accelerate delivery of the project while reducing costs and improving efficiency through public-private partnerships.
A spokesperson for the authority said the decision to dismiss the lawsuit reflects the state’s belief that the federal government is no longer a dependable partner in advancing high-speed rail in California.
According to the spokesperson, federal requirements have at times slowed construction and increased costs without providing meaningful benefits, creating inefficiencies and limiting innovation across the project.
The U.S. Department of Justice did not provide a public response to the dismissal as of publication.
Original article
Comments