Jefferson v. MTA
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-05074
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jefferson v. MTA, Judge Garnett denied Jefferson’s request to immediately stop Second Avenue Subway meetings and construction.
Elaine Jefferson and the defendants named in the action—the Metropolitan Transit Authority, the City of New York, the State of New York, and the United States of America—are affected by the denial of the requested emergency injunction.
What happened
In Elaine Jefferson v. MTA, Elaine Jefferson, representing herself, sued the Metropolitan Transit Authority, the City of New York, the State of New York, and the United States. She alleged property theft and unauthorized construction connected to the MTA’s proposed acquisition of property for the Second Avenue Subway and sought to stop the project.
Jefferson asked the court for an emergency order blocking meetings and construction. The court found that she had not shown the immediate, irreparable harm required for emergency relief. It also said that her standing to raise some alleged harms was unclear and that claims concerning the MTA’s property acquisition were not yet ready for review and belonged in another court.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett denied Jefferson’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court said it would set a schedule to address injunctive relief after all defendants had been properly served.
The detailed version
- Jefferson v. MTA · No. 1:25-cv-05074
- Garnett
- June 18, 2025
Background
Elaine Jefferson, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action against the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), the City of New York, the State of New York, and the United States of America. The complaint alleges “real property theft” and “unauthorized construction” connected to the MTA’s proposed acquisition of permanent property interests in Harlem for construction of the Second Avenue Subway. Jefferson seeks to stop construction and requests physical, emotional-distress, financial, historical, and cultural damages.
Jefferson also moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. She asked the court to immediately stop all public, private, or virtual meetings and all construction and digging related to the Second Avenue Subway project. Her submission objected to the scheduling of a June 17, 2025 public hearing concerning Phase 2, Contract 2, and referred to the possible discovery of additional human remains during construction.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction requires a showing of irreparable harm without the order and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a balance of hardships favoring the movant. The court described this relief as extraordinary and said the moving party must clearly carry the burden of persuasion.
The court found that Jefferson had not shown irreparable harm requiring emergency relief. To the extent her motion identified ongoing or imminent harms, the court said it was unclear whether she had standing—the legal ability to bring those claims—and therefore she could not show the required likelihood of success for emergency relief. The court further stated that any claim concerning the MTA’s acquisition of property under New York’s Eminent Domain Procedure Law was not yet ripe for review and that the proper venue was not the federal court. The opinion cited the state law provision giving the state appellate division exclusive jurisdiction over that matter.
Ruling
Judge Margaret M. Garnett denied Jefferson’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The opinion does not state that the underlying lawsuit was dismissed. It states that, after all defendants have been properly served, the court will set a schedule to address the request for injunctive relief.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.