U.S. Code » Title 33 » Chapter CHAPTER 11— BRIDGES OVER NAVIGABLE WATERS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES

33 U.S.C. § 535

Congressional consent to construction, maintenance, and operation of international bridges; conditions of consent

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar

The consent of Congress is hereby granted to the construction, maintenance, and operation of any bridge and approaches thereto, which will connect the United States with any foreign country (hereinafter in this subchapter referred to as an “international bridge”) and to the collection of tolls for its use, so far as the United States has jurisdiction. Such consent shall be subject to (1) the approval of the proper authorities in the foreign country concerned; (2) the provisions of sections 491 to 494 and 495 to 498 of this title, except section 496 of this title, whether or not such bridge is to be built across or over any of the navigable waters of the United States; and (3) of the provisions of this subchapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1978–2018 · leading case: Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. Gov't of Canada, 189 F. Supp. 3d 85 (D.D.C. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. Gov't of Canada, 189 F. Supp. 3d 85 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 9× “at 5-6 (citing International Bridge Act of 1972 (IBA), 33 U.S.C. § 535 et seq.). The IBA governs the proposed construction of the NITC/DRIC and to require additional congressional action, as DIBC suggests, directly contravenes Congress’s *91 clear intent in 1972 to remove itself…”
Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. Gov't of Canada, 192 F. Supp. 3d 54 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 8× “The International Bridge Act of 1972 (IBA), 33 U.S.C. § 535 et seq., provides in relevant part that: The , consent of Congress is hereby granted for a State or a subdivision or .”
Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. Gov't of Canada, 133 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 3× “The IBA for the first time granted congressional consent for the construction, maintenance, and operation of international bridges without specific congressional legislation. The IBA requires that the foreign country consent, the proposed bridge comply with the 1906 Bridge Act,…”
Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. Gov't of Canada, 883 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “33 U.S.C. § 535 et seq . More than fifteen years ago, the Company decided to build a Twin Span in order to allow for maintenance of the Ambassador Bridge to be done without disrupting bridge traffic across the Detroit River.”
Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. Gov't of Canada, 53 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2014). · cites it 2× “In its most recent statute on bridges over navigable waters, Congress enacted the International Bridge Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. §§ 535 -535Í. By this enactment, Congress removed itself from the business of bridge approvals and gave advance consent to international bridges, subject…”
Louhghalam v. Trump, 230 F. Supp. 3d 26 (D. Mass. 2017). “3d at 104-05 (concluding that the President’s decision to allow a permit for an international bridge was not subject to the APA because he had the authority to do so under the International Bridge Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 535 et seq.). Because the likelihood of success element…”
Presidio Bridge Co. v. Sec'y of United States, 486 F. Supp. 288 (W.D. Tex. 1978). · cites it 2× “Two separate theories form the basis for the complaint: first, that in issuing the permit the State Department failed to comply with the procedural requirements mandated by Executive Order 11423 and the International Bridge Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. §§ 535 et seq.f and, second,…”
City of Laredo v. Webb Cnty., 220 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. App. 2007). “2006); see also 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 535 -535b (2001) (“International Bridge Act”).”
Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. Gov't of Canada, 875 F.3d 1132 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 3× “33 U.S.C. § 535 et seq. More than fifteen years ago, the Company decided to build a Twin Span in order to allow for maintenance of the Ambassador Bridge to be done without disrupting bridge traffic across the Detroit River.”
Detroit Int'l Bridge v. Gov't of Canada (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “33 U.S.C. § 535 et seq. More than fifteen years ago, the Company decided to build a Twin Span in order to allow for maintenance of the Ambassador Bridge to be done without disrupting bridge traffic across the Detroit River.”
City of Laredo, Texas v. Webb Cnty., Texas (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “2005); see also 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 535 -535b (2001) ("International Bridge Act").”
City of Laredo, Texas v. Webb Cnty., Texas (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “2005); see also 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 535 -535b (2001) (“International Bridge Act”).”
Show all 14 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.