Judge Dismisses Taxation Without Representation Lawsuit Against MWAA

A U.S. District Court judge dismissed a that claimed the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority is illegally levying a tax on users of the Dulles Toll Road to pay a share of the Dulles Metrorail project.

The attorneys who represent plaintiffs John Grigsby of Hillsboro and John Corr of Great Falls said they will appeal U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Trenga's July 7 decision. The attorneys are Robert Cynkar, Christopher Kachouroff, whose office is in  Lake Ridge, and Patrick McSweeney.

Only elected bodies can levy taxes and the lawsuit charges that MWAA's use of tolls to pay for a portion of the Silver Line project is taxation without representation and a violation of the Constitution.

The lawsuit charges that the tolls are only to be used for improving and maintaining the Dulles Toll Road and that the rail project does not do that. The 13 members on the MWAA board of directors are appointed, not elected.

The judge said that the Virginia General Assembly in 1990 gave MWWA the right to use tolls to fund mass transit in the Dulles Corridor. The state government transferred ownership of the Dulles Toll Road to MWAA beginning in 2005 under the direction of then governor Tim Kaine.

Trenga ruled that the plaintiffs are not required to use the toll road. He also ruled that there have been a number of legislative decisions that gave MWAA the right to set the tolls to pay for improvements in the Dulles Corridor, to include rail, which are intelligible boundaries that do not violate the Constitution.

Trenga's ruling states that the issues cited in the lawsuit have long been the subject of legislative judgments by elected leaders dealing with public policy for regional transportation solutions. He said that the grievances are not so much a legal injury than they are policy questions better handled by elected government leaders.

"Even where Article III standing exists, courts recognize that certain issues are so inextricably bound up with the political and legislative judgments of the other branches of government that courts should not intrude as a matter of prudence," Trenga wrote.

This is the third time that these charges have been raised in a lawsuit, beginning in 2007. All of the cases were dismissed.

Trenga dismissed this lawsuit with prejudice, which means that the plaintiffs can not refile the lawsuit with the same charges.