The MTA and New York Public Authorities: Runaway Trains of Legal Liability
Every New Yorker has their own subway horror story: being packed like sardines on the 1 train after rush hour, getting stuck in a car without AC for 40 minutes, or encountering that one passenger who’s a little too comfortable talking to strangers. Yet a recent study revealed a more distressing scenario for the millions of commuters who rely on the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s (MTA) services daily: exposure to dangerous levels of air pollution, linked to lung cancer and heart disease. Iron-infused inhalable particles known as PM 2.5 are thrown up into the air as trains screech into stations, creating a toxic environment for waiting passengers. Inside the cabins, outdated air filtration systems struggle to suppress the pollution. [1]
Most importantly, the current pollution levels on the MTA are alarmingly high. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Air Act sets the legal limit for average annual PM 2.5 concentration is 9.0 micrograms per cubic meter. [2] The average subway PM 2.5 level, according to a July 2024 research study from NYU, is 139 micrograms per cubic meter, 15 times the EPA’s legal limit. [3] Furthermore, the study concluded that African American and Hispanic commuters are disproportionately affected. Minority and low-income workers, particularly those living farther away from job hubs–areas like Washington Heights and Inwood in Upper Manhattan–face longer commutes and more station transfers, increasing their exposure to harmful pollution. [4]
It is undeniable that traveling every single day on the MTA’s subway harms overall well-being and health due to pollution, and this burden unjustly falls on low-income commuters who rely on the subway for transportation. Regardless of the subway’s utility in everyday transit, any business that medically harms their customers should normally face legal liability, which begs the question: why has the government of New York City not done anything to fix the MTA’s air pollution problem? The MTA’s organizational structure allows it to avoid financial and legal responsibility, making it the perfect scapegoat for the state.
Labeling the Metropolitan Transit Authority as a government agency would be mischaracterization. The MTA instead exists as a public authority–an independent entity incorporated by the state government. This classification originated from New York’s 1846 constitution, which was later restructured following financial crises to limit state debt and require public referenda for borrowing. Seeking workarounds to these obstacles, the state established public authorities, beginning with the Port of New York Authority in 1921. [5] These entities were given free reign by the state to provide public services independently of government control and constitutional limitations, a broad definition codified in the 1938 constitution. [6]
However, this classification creates gray areas in terms of how public authorities are regulated. In Schulz v. State of New York (1995), a class action lawsuit alleged Governor Mario Cuomo’s 4 year, $20 billion financing plan for New York transportation public authorities (including the MTA) was unconstitutional in that it bypassed state debt limits for the given year. [7] While the New York Court of Appeals’ ruling clarified state governments cannot directly lend money to public authorities, it can “gift” state money to public authorities at will for capital investments with any liability for debt incurred transferring to the public authority using the funds. [8] The Court of Appeals’ ruling in Schulz solidified how public authorities are free to enjoy their separate existence from the government–including separation from liability and restrictions the State would normally face. The tangible result of this “separate existence”: public authorities are responsible for over 97% of State debt, or around $278.4 billion. [9] In addition, most of this money goes towards operating expenses–including legal fees–rather than actual capital investments. [10] In the case of the MTA, no amount of environmental or financial penalties will ever incentivise the state to fix its air pollution given how the MTA can infinitely draw upon state debt to pay any fees without punishment.
The real danger lies in how court precedent has reinforced the MTA’s ability to avoid legal responsibility. As a public authority, it is shielded from liability in ways that a governmental agency otherwise wouldn’t be. In the New York Supreme Court case, John Grace Co. v. State Univ. Constr. Fund, the State University Construction Fund (a public authority) refused to adjust government contracts it awarded to firms when costs rose significantly due to the energy crisis of 1973 even though law at the time mandated such adjustments from government contractors. [11] The court still ruled in favor of the State University Construction Fund, citing how its existence as a public authority outside of government control freed it from legal liability for state mandated contract adjustments. [12] This precedent empowers public authorities to circumvent liability for breaching government contracts or specific regulations provided by state law. Currently, the main law enforcing indoor air quality standards is New York Administrative Code statute § 24-141, which vaguely prevents air contaminants that cause detriment to public health. [13] Not only does the lack of specificity benefit the MTA, but even if it were to be found guilty of violating this law, it would face a maximum $1,200 fine for each offense, paid to the state government, which already provides limitless funding to the MTA. [14] Even if the state of New York were to provide improved regulations for air pollution on public transit, the MTA’s status as a public authority, again, insulates it or the city from ever facing consequences for violating environment regulations.
If at the state level, it becomes increasingly difficult to pin ever-evasive public authorities down for legal liability, what about at the federal level? In theory, the EPA’s Clean Air Act would enforce levels of PM 2.5 through the act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), ensuring that the state of New York would be unable to avoid fixing subway air pollution. [15] Federal standards, though, are undermined by ambiguity over the subway’s legal classification. There is legitimate uncertainty as to how subway stations should be classified. The EPA’s Clean Air Act is only enforceable in open public air, and about 60% of the MTA’s 472 stations are subterranean, sheltered structures. [16] Furthermore, New York building codes safeguard underground subway stations from being prosecuted as open public spaces because to be classified as an “open station”, the subway station must “[have] no roof over the guideway or has an open exterior perimeter of at least 50 percent and [allow] smoke and heat to dispense directly to the atmosphere”. [17] Otherwise, there is extremely limited court precedent for enforcing indoor air pollution, quite literally giving the MTA an underground method to escape liability.
Recent Supreme Court decisions further hinder the ability of federal regulation to supersede ineffective New York state laws. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. was a landmark 1984 Supreme Court case in which the EPA was challenged by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmentalist advocacy group, for its reinterpretation of the Clean Air Act’s ambiguous definition for a “source of pollution”. [18] While the Supreme Court ruled against the Natural Resources Defense Council’s challenge, in their decision they also critically established the doctrine known as “Chevron Deference”, meaning courts should generally defer to a government agency’s interpretation of a regulation. [19] However, in June of 2024, the United States Supreme Court overturned their ruling in Chevron v. U.S.A. in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a dispute over whether agencies like the National Marine Fisheries Services are able with Chevron Deference to interpret ambiguous definitions of regulations in such a way that significantly harms regulated firms. [20] With the overturning of Chevron Deference, federal regulations like the EPA’s Clean Air Act NAAQS were significantly weakened, meaning there is only increased difficulty in finding fault with the MTA at the federal level.
For public authorities like the MTA, there exists only weak means of enforcing legal liability at both the federal and state levels. Therefore, if the problem lies in the MTA’s near-invincible status as a public authority, why not simply just strip the MTA of public authority status and make it a government agency? Due to New York State law such a transition is near impossible. To initiate the dissolution of a public authority, a petition must be filed to the state legislature for a vote to dissolve the authority. [21] However, for an authority as essential as the MTA, such a petition would be dismissed outright. Alternatively, a public authority can naturally expire via Public Authority Law section § 2828, which states that an authority “shall terminate at the end of five years from the date of its creation if at the end of such period it has outstanding no liabilities.” [22] The MTA is currently $48 billion in debt. [23] Even theoretically, for the MTA to restructure their debt to formally dissolve in order to reclassify, they would have to declare bankruptcy. Public authorities are legally prohibited from declaring bankruptcy under chapter 9 of the U.S. Federal Bankruptcy Code and State Law, meaning that there is literally no possible way for the MTA to pay back its debt besides the State of New York intervening [24]. Simply put, turning a public authority into a government agency is a nearly impossible.
Given all of the above, the MTA and public authorities are almost invincible to legal liability. It would seem there is little light at the end of the proverbial subway tunnel to actually stop air pollution in the subway. However, not all hope is lost. In July of 2024, a New York case actually made headway in curbing New York State’s ability to pass legal blame to public authorities. In Goldenberg v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., a class action lawsuit was filed against the MTA for failing to comply with New York City Human Rights Law, alleging large gaps between the train and platform alongside poor safety standards on subway station platforms discriminated against individuals with disabilities. [25] New York City responded by arguing that since it leases out the subway to the MTA, a public authority that it cannot control, it faces no liability under New York City Human Rights Law since it is the MTA’s responsibility to provide the accommodations. In spite of this defense being New York’s tried-and-true way of passing liability to a public authority, for once, the court pushed back, ruling against the city claiming that as a lessor to the MTA, the government assumes liability for its violations.
Regardless of whether this ruling is the start of a precedent to enforce the city’s legal liability for MTA violations, one thing remains certain: states cannot keep using public authorities to shed all liability. It is easy to be complacent with holding public authorities accountable given the essential utilities they provide, given how they all serve such an understated, unnoticed purpose in day to day life. New Yorkers must understand, though, that behind every tax to continue funding a public authority deeply in debt, or every poor subway experience, lies a lack of accountability toward this inherently flawed system. The subway's current air pollution is just symptomatic of the larger issue of New York's lack of legal liability. Whether change comes through the state legislature or New Yorkers advocating for greater government accountability, it is imperative that abuse of the public authority system must end once and for all.
Edited by Love Patel
[1] Millman, Oliver, “‘People Should Be Alarmed’: Air Pollution in US Subway Systems Stuns Researchers,” The Guardian, February 10, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/10/subway-air-pollution-new-york-washington-dc.
[2] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CFR, “Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter,” Federal Register 89, no. 45 (March 6, 2024): 16202.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-03-06/pdf/2024-02637.pdf.
[3] Azad, Shams, Pau Ferrer-Cid, and Masoud Ghandehari, “Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter in the New York City Subway System during Home-Work Commute,” PLOS ONE 19, no. 8 (August 7, 2024): e0307096.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307096.
[4] “Subway Air Pollution Disproportionately Impacts New York City’s Minority and Low-Income Commuters | NYU Tandon School of Engineering,” Accessed November 25, 2024. https://engineering.nyu.edu/news/subway-air-pollution-disproportionately-impacts-new-york-citys-minority-and-low-income.
[5] Schulz v. State of New York, 639 N.E.2d 1140, 242-244 (1994)
[6] NY Pub Auth L § 2 and 2824 (2023).
[7] Schulz v. State of New York, 639 N.E.2d 1140, 237-238 (1994).
[8] Schulz v. State of New York, 639 N.E.2d 1140, 250-251 (1994).
[9] “Public Authorities | Office of the New York State Comptroller,” Accessed November 28, 2024, https://www.osc.ny.gov/public-authorities. ; “Annual Report on Public Authorities in New York State,” New York Authorities Budget Office, July 1, 2024, https://www.abo.ny.gov/reports/annualreports/ABO2024AnnualReport.pdf.
[10] “New York’s Public Authorities: Promoting Accountability and Taming Debt,” Citizens Budget Commission, September 2006, 13.
[11] John Grace Co. v. State Univ. Constr. Fund, 99 A.D.2d 860, 860 (1984).
[12] John Grace Co. v. State Univ. Constr. Fund, 99 A.D.2d 860, 863 (1984).
[13] NY Ad Code § 24-141 (2024).
[14] NY Ad Code § 43-02 (2024).
[15] “NAAQS Table,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, February 7, 2024,
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table.
[16] “Subway and Bus Facts 2019,” MTA, August 7, 2024,
https://new.mta.info/agency/new-york-city-transit/subway-bus-facts-2019.
[17] Uniform Code Provisions for Rail Stations § 202 (2021).
[18] Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 840 (1984).
[19] Cwiklinski, Justin, “Chevron Deference,” Legal Information Institute, July 2024, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference.
[20] Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2248 (2024).
[21] “Dissolution of a Public Authority,” Authorities Budget Office, Accessed November 28, 2024, https://www.abo.ny.gov/Dissolution/dissolution.html.
[22] NY Pub Auth L § 2828 (2023).
[23] Nessen, Stephen, and Clayton Guse. “A $48 Billion Debt Is Crushing the MTA. Paying It off Could Disrupt the Future of NYC Transit” WNYC, June 21, 2023, https://www.wnyc.org/story/48-billion-debt-crushing-mta-paying-it-could-disrupt-future-nyc-transit/.
[24] Kennedy, Brian, “The MTA and the MLF: COVID Creates New Paradigms of Federal Intervention in Municipal Finance,” Columbia University SIPA, February 24, 2021, 3,
[25] Goldenberg v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., NY Slip Op 24212, (July 17, 2024).