A federal court decision in the fight over Manhattan’s congestion pricing plan has left both sides claiming victory and attorneys looking for answers from the judge.

Late Monday, Judge Leo M. Gordon issued a long-awaited decision in the fight over increased tolls for vehicles entering central Manhattan. In New Jersey v. U.S. Department of Transportation, the Garden State accused the federal government of “rubber-stamping” the environmental review phase of the tolling plan based on what it called the "inexplicable 'finding' that the proposed action will have no significant impact on the human or natural environment."

Ultimately, the judge issued a partial remand of the environmental approvals for the plan, siding, at least partially, with New Jersey in its challenge to the environmental determination that allowed the Manhattan Central Business District Tolling Program to go forward with the project.

But the decision left both sides claiming they won.

Bruce Nagel, a partner with Nagel Rice in Roseland, told the Law Journal that the plaintiffs have asked Gordon for clarity on the ruling.

Nagel, who represents a class of residents who alleged they would be impacted by the increased traffic, said that Gordon agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that the plan was flawed because it allocated $155 million to New York for mitigation of the environmental impact of the new toll but nothing for New Jersey.

“Don’t mess with Jersey,” Nagel said. “This effectively stops the plan on Jan. 5 and now we await further analysis by the federal government to do what they should have done in the first place.”

However, Metropolitan Transit Authority Chair and CEO Janno Lieber seemingly disagreed that New Jersey won and issued a statement saying the decision does not interfere with enactment of the plan on Jan. 5. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul agreed.

“Despite the best efforts of the State of New Jersey trying to thwart New York’s ability to reduce congestion on our streets while making long-overdue investments in public transit, our position has prevailed in court on nearly every issue,” Hochul said in a statement.

But Randy M. Mastro of King & Spalding who represents New Jersey in the case, reached the opposite conclusion and said in a statement that the plan cannot move forward.

“The judge determined that the Federal Highway Administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving the MTA’s plan, that the FHWA's decision provided no rational explanation of mitigation commitments, that New York changed its tolling scheme significantly after it gained federal approval, and that more consideration is needed before the current congestion pricing proposal may take effect,” Mastro said.

The federal court decision came just days before a new toll was set to take effect for drivers entering Manhattan. New Jersey sought an order from Gordon vacating the final environmental assessment and the FONSI, or finding of no significant impact, that the Federal Highway Administration issued. The state also wants the agency to prepare an environmental impact statement.

Gordon also noted that New Jersey’s arguments are partially undercut by “regional mitigation comments” included in the final environmental assessment and FONSI.

“However, plaintiff raises some persuasive arguments that the Federal Highway Administration appears to have acted in an arbitrary manner when it set specific place-based mitigation funding commitments for the Bronx but failed to do so with respect to New Jersey,” Gordon said.

Gordon added that the defendants provided a “reasoned explanation” by contending that even though specific monetary amounts and locations may not have been established at the outset, that gives them flexibility. However, Gordon also said that rationale does not explain why precise amounts of relief were dedicated to New York while there was nothing specified for New Jersey.

“Ultimately, the court concludes the final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact fail to provide a rational connection between the general mitigation commitments outlined and the specific resolution of any and all significant impacts that may result from the program, whether those impacts are in New York or New Jersey,” Gordon said.

Mark A. Chertok and Elizabeth Knauer of Sive Paget & Riesel represented the MTA and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. The federal defendants were represented by Gregory M. Cumming and Shari Howard of the U.S. Department of Justice. None immediately responded to requests for comment.