Attorney George Bochetto (credit: Bochetto's law firm web site) is suing SEPTA over their reduction in service.
Philadelphia attorney George Bochetto is mounting a comprehensive legal challenge against SEPTA's controversial service cuts, arguing the transit agency's "doomsday" reductions are not only unnecessary but illegal on multiple constitutional and statutory grounds.
His lawsuit, filed with an emergency injunction request, presents a three-pronged attack that could reshape how public transit agencies implement service changes.
Financial Resources Render Cuts Arbitrary
Bochetto's primary argument centers on SEPTA's substantial financial reserves, which he contends make the service cuts legally indefensible.
"They had $396 million in a reserve fund," Bochetto told Philly Daily. "The cuts that they're doing save them about 5 million a month. They have ample, ample funds to cover all these service provisions without jeopardizing its stability."
Bochetto argued this violates SEPTA's own enabling statute by making the cuts arbitrary when alternative funding exists.
The attorney points to what he calls "Russian roulette" tactics, claiming SEPTA is "using Philadelphia citizens as pawns in their struggle" with the state legislature for additional funding.
SEPTA is sitting on a $396 million emergency "stabilization fund" while implementing cuts that eliminate 32 bus routes and reduce service on 88 remaining lines.
Constitutional Civil Rights Violations
The second pillar of Bochetto's case addresses the disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations.
"The impacts of the service cuts are most harshly felt by the minority community and the poor working class, and that's a constitutional violation," he stated.
This civil rights angle draws from established legal precedent where courts have scrutinized transit decisions that create disparate impacts on protected classes.
The cuts affect 180,000 Philadelphia students and working-class residents who depend on public transit, with fare increases to $2.90 tying New York's MTA as the nation's highest.
Fundamental Constitutional Challenge
Perhaps most dramatically, Bochetto's third argument challenges SEPTA's very existence, claiming "the SEPTA enabling statute itself is unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania constitution, and although it's never been challenged before, we think it's pretty clear that it's violating the Pennsylvania constitution and SEPTA itself is illegally constituted.
"Enabling statutes have to set forth standards and guidelines and policies for which the governmental entity or the agency being created is to conduct itself. And in this case, the enabling statute contains no such standards or policies," Bochetto explained.
Historical Precedent and Immediate Impact
Bochetto's strategy has historical support.
In 2007, Mayor John Street successfully challenged similar SEPTA cuts, with a Common Pleas Court judge ruling that SEPTA's board had acted "without any study of the impact on those who would be most adversely affected."
The current cuts are already causing significant disruption. Riders report delays of a half-hour to an hour and having to catch two or three buses just to get to where they need to go.
Personal Motivation and Public Service
When asked about his motivation, Bochetto emphasized his commitment to public interest litigation after decades of successful practice.
"I have benefited over the course of almost 50 years of practicing law of a great deal of success. And I now take on cases that I think are important for the public, and this is a very important case for the public," he explained.
The veteran attorney, who has successfully challenged various city actions including statue removals and holiday changes, expressed confidence in his case against SEPTA.
"I think we have a clear case, and I think I'm very optimistic about it," he stated.
With additional cuts planned for January that would eliminate five Regional Rail lines and impose a 9 p.m. curfew on remaining services, Bochetto's legal challenge represents a critical test of transit agencies' authority to implement service reductions when alternative funding sources exist.
