Appeals panel affirms courts can quickly block USPS changes ahead of election

By Jim Saksa

The E. Barrett Prettyman United States Court House in Washington, D.C., home to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA/FISC).

Editor’s Note: This story has undergone significant editing since publication. An original version inaccurately described the potential impact of the ruling.  

A federal appeals court panel on Tuesday tossed a 2020 injunction against U.S. Postal Service (USPS) budget cuts. But deep in the ruling, the judges took the chance to send a message to the Department of Justice: that federal courts may still quickly block last-minute USPS actions ahead of an election, without getting delayed by procedural disputes.

With concern growing about late changes to mail delivery that could make it harder for ballots to arrive on time, the finding could cut off a potential avenue for the Trump administration’s anti-voting interference.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, made up of two President Barack Obama appointees and one President Donald Trump appointee, ruled unanimously to overturn a lower court order that prevented USPS from eliminating late and extra mail delivery trips. They held that the plaintiffs in New York v. Trump should have first challenged the USPS budget cuts before the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) before suing in the district court. 

But the judges stressed in a footnote that their ruling doesn’t prevent the filing of emergency lawsuits directly in federal court just before an election. 

“[W]e need not address whether the statutory review scheme would have foreclosed all meaningful judicial review at the preliminary injunction stage, when the [plaintiffs] sought to halt the Postal Policy Changes only months before the November 2020 general election,” the judges wrote. 

In other words, the court recognized that, though challenges need to go to the PRC for a final decision to be rendered, some pre-election issues are so pressing that plaintiffs could receive temporary relief from a district court without going through the lengthy PRC process.

And of course, temporary relief is enough when plaintiffs are trying to stop a pre-election change that could affect voting access.

If backed by the wider court, that finding could prevent the USPS from making changes right before the election, then claiming that the only relief is filing a complaint with the PRC.