The City of Boston sued the U.S. Department of Transportation in federal court in Boston on Monday, September 28, 2026, to restore a $20 million federal grant for street improvements on three Roxbury roads: Melnea Cass Boulevard, Malcolm X Boulevard and Warren Street. The department withdrew the award in September 2025. According to the city’s complaint, the stated reason was that the project included electric vehicle charging, which the city says was less than 1% of the grant.
The case is City of Boston v. Duffy, No. 1:26-cv-14419. We read the 39-page complaint. Here is what it alleges, what it asks for, and the jurisdiction question that federal grant cases like this one have run into since 2025.
The grant
According to the complaint, in August 2022 the department awarded Boston a $20 million grant under the RAISE program (Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity), funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The Roxbury Project covered road, sidewalk and transit improvements on the three corridors. MassLive reported that U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley wrote in the application that the roads “experience high crash rates, have substandard air quality compared to other neighborhoods, and have limited shade-tree canopy,” and that bus service was unreliable.
The city says the RAISE statute requires funded projects to “improve[] environmental sustainability” and use “innovative technologies or techniques,” citing 49 U.S.C. § 6702(d)(3) and (4), and that the department’s own funding notice listed “installation of electric vehicle charging stations” as an example of a project supporting environmental sustainability. So the city included a small EV charging component.
For the next three years, the complaint says, the city worked through the Federal Transit Administration’s onboarding process, including weekly meetings with FTA staff for eight months in 2024, ran a selection process for a design consultant, and did community engagement. One fact matters a great deal: the complaint says the city and the FTA “had not yet executed a grant agreement.”
The withdrawal
In September 2025, according to the complaint, the department sent a brief letter. It said the department’s priorities “presently include: promoting traditional forms of energy and natural resources” and “ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently,” and that the grant was “inconsistent” with those priorities “because of the project’s inclusion of EV charging infrastructure.” It concluded: “Because your project no longer aligns with DOT priorities, the Department is withdrawing the selection of your project for a FY 2022 RAISE grant.”
The complaint says the withdrawal followed a memo from Secretary Sean Duffy directing offices to review “competitive award selections made after January 20, 2021, that do NOT have fully obligated grant agreements or cooperative agreements in place” for compliance with “current Administration priorities and Executive Orders.”
What Boston claims
The complaint has five counts against the department, Secretary Duffy, the Federal Transit Administration and its acting deputy administrator, Matthew Cahill:
- Arbitrary and capricious agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The city says the letter ignored the statutory criteria and the funding notice and gave no weight to the city’s reliance on the award.
- Action in excess of statutory authority and contrary to law under the APA, § 706(2)(A) and (C), because the RAISE statute sets the criteria and the department substituted its own.
- Separation of powers.
- The Take Care Clause.
- Ultra vires agency action.
It asks the court to declare the withdrawal unlawful, vacate it, and enjoin the defendants from carrying it out. The complaint also says the money has not run out: Congress extended the deadline to obligate these RAISE funds from September 30, 2026 to September 30, 2031 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026.
The question every grant case now faces: which court?
Since April 2025, the first fight in many federal grant cases has not been about the merits. It has been about whether a federal district court can hear the case at all.
In Department of Education v. California, 604 U.S. 650 (2025), a case that arose from a Massachusetts district court order, the Supreme Court stayed an order requiring the government to pay out terminated education grants. The Court said the government was “likely to succeed in showing the District Court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the APA.” It explained that the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity “does not extend to orders ‘to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money,'” and that instead “the Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits based on ‘any express or implied contract with the United States.'” That was an emergency stay ruling, not a final decision on the merits, but it has shaped these cases since.
Boston’s complaint does not mention the Tucker Act. It is built around the APA and asks the court to set aside an agency decision, not to order payment under a contract. And its own facts bear on the question: the city says no grant agreement was ever signed. Whether a withdrawn selection with no executed agreement is a contract dispute or a reviewable agency action is likely to be one of the first issues the court addresses.
What happens next
- The government will respond, and may move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As of filing, the docket showed no motion for a preliminary injunction.
- A judge had not yet been assigned on the public docket when we reviewed it.
Frequently asked questions
Why is Boston suing the Trump administration over road funding?
To restore a $20 million RAISE grant for Melnea Cass Boulevard, Malcolm X Boulevard and Warren Street in Roxbury. The Department of Transportation withdrew the award in September 2025, citing the project’s electric vehicle charging component. The city filed City of Boston v. Duffy in federal court in Boston on September 28, 2026.
How much of the grant was for EV charging?
According to the city’s complaint, less than 1%. The rest was for street, sidewalk and transit improvements.
What is a RAISE grant?
A federal Department of Transportation grant, Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity, funded for FY 2022 through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The statute’s criteria are in 49 U.S.C. section 6702.
Has Boston lost the money for good?
Not necessarily. According to the complaint, Congress extended the deadline to obligate the FY 2022 RAISE funds to September 30, 2031. Whether Boston gets the grant depends on the lawsuit.
Sources: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, City of Boston v. Duffy, No. 1:26-cv-14419 (D. Mass. filed Sept. 28, 2026), read in full; exhibits not reviewed. Department of Education v. California, 604 U.S. 650 (2025) (per curiam), read. MassLive, September 28, 2026 (Pressley application quotation). Allegations in a complaint are one side’s account. General information, not legal advice.