Introduction

The case of Business and Residents Alliance of East Harlem et al. v. Jackson et al. (430 F.3d 584) heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on November 22, 2005, examines the intersection of federal funding within Urban Empowerment Zones and the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), specifically Section 106. The plaintiffs, comprising local business associations and residents, challenged the allocation of federal funds to the East River Plaza project in East Harlem, arguing that such funding necessitated a historic preservation review under Section 106 of the NHPA. The defendants, including federal officials and local development corporations, contended that the project did not fall under federal jurisdiction to trigger such a review.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the allocation of $5 million in federal block grant funds to the East River Plaza project did not implicate federal jurisdiction under Section 106 of the NHPA. Consequently, no historic preservation review was required before the project's continuation. The court emphasized that decision-making and fund allocation for the project were managed at the state and local levels, with no direct or indirect federal agency involvement that would invoke Section 106.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents to elucidate the scope of federal jurisdiction under Section 106:

• BOURDON v. LOUGHREN: Established the de novo standard of review for summary judgments.
• Watch v. Harris: Emphasized the broad mandate of the NHPA in preserving historic resources.
• LEE v. THORNBURGH: Highlighted that Section 106 requires agency compliance only when agencies have jurisdiction over funding decisions.
• Sheridan Kalorama Historical Ass'n v. Christopher: Discussed ambiguity in defining "undertaking" under the NHPA.

These precedents collectively informed the court's interpretation of federal agency authority and the applicability of Section 106 in contexts involving federal funding.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on the interpretation of "direct or indirect jurisdiction" as defined under Section 106 of the NHPA. It examined whether the federal agencies involved—HUD and HHS—held the authority to control the expenditure of federal funds for the East River Plaza project. The court concluded that since the allocation and approval of the $5 million in federal block grants were conducted entirely by state and local entities without any federal agency's direct or indirect involvement, Section 106 was not triggered. Additionally, the court addressed the plaintiffs' argument that federal regulations governing block grants implicitly required a Section 106 review, dismissing it as a circular argument that depended on the initial premise being true.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent by clarifying the limits of federal jurisdiction under the NHPA in the context of Empowerment Zones. It delineates that federal preservation review is not automatically invoked merely through the distribution of federal funds within such zones unless a federal agency has a substantive role in project approval or funding decisions. This decision may limit the scope of Section 106 applications in similar local development projects, reinforcing the autonomy of state and local bodies in managing federally allocated funds.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Second Circuit's affirmation in Business and Residents Alliance of East Harlem et al. v. Jackson et al. underscores the necessity of clear federal agency involvement to trigger NHPA Section 106 reviews. By determining that HUD and HHS lacked the requisite jurisdiction over the East River Plaza project's funding and execution, the court reinforced the principle that local autonomy in managing federally allocated funds does not inherently subject projects to federal historic preservation obligations. This decision delineates the boundaries of federal oversight, providing clarity for future cases involving federal funding within Empowerment Zones and similar development initiatives.