The Federal Aviation Administration has moved to dismiss a city of Boulder lawsuit that was sparked by debate over whether the city should close its municipal airport.

The lawsuit, filed in late July, came as city officials were considering whether to decommission the airport and repurpose its nearly 180 acres of land as a residential area. Housing advocates have seen a potential future unparalleled opportunity to build more affordable housing in Boulder.

Some community members also have voiced concern about noise and possible lead pollution at the airport. Two citizen-initiated ballot measures to close the airport and redevelop the land qualified for this fall’s ballot, but the petitioners withdrew the measures after the lawsuit was filed.

The suit challenges the FAA’s claim that Boulder must keep its airport open in perpetuity because it accepted grant funding in 1959, 1977 and 1991 to buy land at the airport property.

Attorneys for the city also argued that the federal agency is unconstitutionally interfering with the city’s ability to govern itself. FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker and the United States of America are co-defendants in the lawsuit.

In a court filing on Friday, attorneys for the defendants made numerous arguments for why the suit should be dismissed. First, they said, when the city officials took federal grant funding, they agreed to conditions that require the city to seek FAA approval before closing the airport, and those conditions have no time limit. The attorneys said the statute of limitations should block the city from challenging agreements it entered into decades ago.

In addition, the attorneys argued that the FAA has done no damage to the city and “the issues that the city seeks to resolve simply may never arise.” And they disputed Boulder’s claim of unconstitutional interference with the city’s authority.

“The city could have refused to accept the federal funds if it did not like the conditions, but it did not. And the city fails to state a due process violation because the United States has not deprived the city of a protected property interest. Rather, in exchange for federal funding, the city knowingly agreed to use the property comprising the airport as an airport, subject to the FAA’s authority over airport closures,” the filing said.

Locally, the lawsuit has been a contentious issue, much like the future of the airport itself. Boulder officials have said the suit is needed to clarify for how long the city must keep the airport open. Pro-airport community members have called the lawsuit a waste of city money and resources, and they have called on the city to drop the litigation. Because the city has paused taking FAA grant funding while the lawsuit is pending, airport advocates also want to see the city start accepting this funding to invest in the airport.

More than one other city that wanted to close its municipal airport has successfully done so, and there are different pathways for accomplishing that task. According to other reporting, the city of Santa Monica, Calif., reached a settlement agreement with the FAA in 2017 that released the city from its obligation to keep its airport open in perpetuity after 2028. In the meantime, the city was also allowed to shorten the airport’s runway.

And earlier this year, Congress passed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, which contained a provision allowing the municipal airport in Banning, Calif., to be closed. California lawmakers had moved to include that provision because Banning officials and local Indigenous tribal representatives were interested in repurposing the airport property there.