the dredging project lack merit. Nor does it mean that the Court will never adjudicate the merits of these claims or that, as stated at oral argument, Defendants have blanket immunity to carry out their dredging project without any judicial oversight. Instead, the Court, as section 9613(h) requires, must adjudicate these claims after the EPA’s remedial action at the Hudson River is undertaken. See Alabama, 871 F.2d at 1560. Consequently, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action and their third cause of action to the extent it too raises ability to bring pre-enforcement due process and equal protection claims against the Environmental Protection Agency); Broward Garden Tenants Ass’n v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 157 F.Supp.2d 1329, 1340-41 (S.D.Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>); South Macomb Disposal Auth. v. United States
holding that section 9613h precluded preenforcement judicial review of plaintiffs constitutional challenge cercla recognizing cercla successor liability holding that we review constitutional challenges de novo holding that section 9613h bars judicial review over constitutional challenges to cercla holding that courts should exercise judicial restraint and decide asapplied challenges before facial challenges