U.S. Code » Title 23 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

23 U.S.C. § 145

Federal-State relationship

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 23 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Protection of State Sovereignty.—The authorization of the appropriation of Federal funds or their availability for expenditure under this chapter shall in no way infringe on the sovereign rights of the States to determine which projects shall be federally financed. The provisions of this chapter provide for a federally assisted State program.(b)Purpose of Projects.—The projects described in section 1702 of the SAFETEA–LU, section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, sections 1103 through 1108 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2027 et seq.), and section 149(a) of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 181 et seq.) are intended to establish eligibility for Federal-aid highway funds made available for such projects by section 1101(a)(16) of the SAFETEA–LU, section 1101(a)(13) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, sections 1103 through 1108 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, and subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 149 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, respectively, and are not intended to define the scope or limits of Federal action in a manner inconsistent with subsection (a).(Added Pub. L. 93–87, title I, § 123(a), Aug. 13, 1973, 87 Stat. 261; amended Pub. L. 105–178, title I, § 1601(b), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 256; Pub. L. 109–59, title I, § 1701(e), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1256; Pub. L. 112–141, div. A, title I, § 1519(c)(9), formerly § 1519(c)(10), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 576, renumbered § 1519(c)(9), Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title I, § 1446(d)(5)(B), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1438.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 1702 of the SAFETEA–LU, referred to in subsec. (b), is section 1702 of Pub. L. 109–59, title I, Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1256, which is not classified to the Code.

Section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, referred to in subsec. (b), is section 1602 of Pub. L. 105–178, title I, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 256, which is not classified to the Code.

Sections 1103 through 1108 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, referred to in subsec. (b), are sections 1103 to 1108 of Pub. L. 102–240, title I, Dec. 18, 1991, 105 Stat. 2027–2063. See Tables for classification.

Section 149(a) of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, referred to in subsec. (b), is section 149(a) of Pub. L. 100–17, title I, Apr. 2, 1987, 101 Stat. 181, which is not classified to the Code.

Section 1101(a)(16) of the SAFETEA–LU, referred to in subsec. (b), is section 1101(a)(16) of Pub. L. 109–59, title I, Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1155, which is not classified to the Code.

Section 1101(a)(13) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, referred to in subsec. (b), is section 1101(a)(13) of Pub. L. 105–178, title I, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 113, which is not classified to the Code.

Amendments

2015—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–94, § 1446(d)(5)(B), amended Pub. L. 112–141, § 1519(c). See 2012 Amendment note below.

2012—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 112–141, § 1519(c)(9), formerly § 1519(c)(10), as renumbered by Pub. L. 114–94, § 1446(d)(5)(B), struck out “section 117 of this title,” after “21st Century,” second time appearing.

2005—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–59 inserted “section 1702 of the SAFETEA–LU,” after “described in” and “section 1101(a)(16) of the SAFETEA–LU,” after “for such projects by” and substituted “section 117 of this title,” for “117 of title 23, United States Code,”.

1998—Pub. L. 105–178 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2015 Amendment

Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title I, § 1446(d), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1438, provided that the amendment made by section 1446(d)(5)(B) is effective as of July 6, 2012, and as if included in Pub. L. 112–141 as enacted.

Effective Date of 2012 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–141 effective Oct. 1, 2012, see section 3(a) of Pub. L. 112–141, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2012 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2021 · leading case: Scottsdale Mall v. State of Indiana & Indiana State High. Comm'n, 549 F.2d 484 (7th Cir. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Scottsdale Mall v. State of Indiana & Indiana State High. Comm'n, 549 F.2d 484 (7th Cir. 1977). · cites it 4× “5 (b), 6 its eligibility *488 for federal funding was foreclosed — a course of action reserved to each state by right under 23 U.S.C. § 145 . That statute provides: The authorization of the appropriation of Federal funds or their availability for expenditure under this chapter…”
1000 Friends of Wisconsin Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 860 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “” 23 U.S.C. § 145 (a). Under NEPA, a project “significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” requires the “responsible Federal official” to ensure that an environmental impact statement has been prepared.”
Guillen v. Pierce Cnty., 31 P.3d 628 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 145 (a) ("The authorization of the appropriation of Federal funds or their availability for expenditure under this chapter shall in no way infringe on the sovereign rights of the States to determine which projects shall be federally financed.”
Guillen v. Pierce Cnty., 181 A.L.R. Fed. 741 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “While 23 U.S.C. § 145 “proteet[s] state sovereignty,” see 23 U.”
City of Cleveland v. Ohio, 508 F.3d 827 (6th Cir. 2007). “” 23 U.S.C. § 145 (a). States are eligible to receive funding if they have a state transportation department capable of carrying out the duties required by the Program.”
State Ex Rel. State High. Comm'n v. City of St. Louis, 575 S.W.2d 712 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “See 23 U.S.C.A. § 145 (Supp.1978) (Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, § 123(a), Pub.”
Taubman Realty Grp. Ltd. P'ship v. Mineta, 198 F. Supp. 2d 744 (E.D. Va. 2002). · cites it 2× “” 23 U.S.C. § 145 (a). In addition, Congress emphasized in FAHA that “[t]he construction of any highway or portions of highways located on a Federal-aid system shall be undertaken by the respective state transportation department or under their direct supervision.”
Frank Bros., Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., Frank Busalacchi, Sec'y, & Marilyn Kuick, Chief Eeo/labor Compliance, 409 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2005). “This conclusion is also bolstered by 23 U.S.C. § 145 which provides in pertinent part: “(a) Protection of State sovereignty.”
Ross v. Fed. High. Admin., 162 F.3d 1046 (10th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “In accordance with 23 U.S.C. § 145 , it is the State’s decision on which highway projects they will use their limited Federal-aid highway funds.”
Ross v. Fed. High. Admin., 972 F. Supp. 552 (D. Kan. 1997). · cites it 7× “On February 21, 1997, the FHWA responded to plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter, stating that KDOT and Douglas County had agreed to complete the eastern leg of the Trafficway without federal funds and that such agreement was in accord with 23 U.S.C. § 145 , which authorizes states to…”
Cnty. of Los Angeles Cal. v. Coleman, 423 F. Supp. 496 (D.D.C. 1976). · cites it 2× “It is thus the State’s ultimate responsibility to select those urban projects submitted to the Secretary for funding ( 23 U.S.C. § 145 ; 23 C.F.R. § 450.318 (b)), just as it is the State’s responsibility to select— or, if necessary, to replace — each MPO.”
Saf., Agric., Villages & Env't (S.A.V.E.), Inc. v. Delaware Valley Reg'l Plan. Comm'n, 819 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003). “…in no way infringe on the sovereign rights of the States to determine which project shall be federally financed.” 23 U.S.C. § 145 (a).”
Show all 31 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.