Courthouse News Service: A D.C. Circuit panel ruled Tuesday that plaintiffs must first challenge any postal changes by the U.S. Postal Service at the Postal Regulatory Commission before they can be heard in federal court, likely stymying any such lawsuits before the November midterms.
The three-judge panel unanimously reversed a federal judge’s summary judgment finding for New York, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York City and San Francisco after determining he held no jurisdiction over the claim, which was brought in 2020 over concerns a set of policy changes would impact the November 2020 election.
In the summer of 2020, the Postal Service’s changes included a reduction of the number of high-speed mail sorting machines, a decrease of employee overtime, the elimination of late or extra mail delivery trips and a change in how mail carriers sort and deliver the mail.
The state and city coalition sued in August 2020, successfully arguing the Postal Service failed to obtain an advisory opinion from the commission before making the changes, leading Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, to enjoin the changes in September 2020.
In September 2022, Sullivan granted summary judgment to the coalition after finding the postal commission’s review scheme was supplemental and federal court review was necessary to ensure prompt relief. His ruling permanently enjoined the Postal Service from implementing the elimination of late or extra trips without obtaining an advisory opinion from the commission.
U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote the court’s opinion and said Congress laid out a specific review scheme in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 that only gave federal courts jurisdiction to hear appeals of the postal commission’s orders, not initial lawsuits.
“We begin and end with jurisdiction,” Rao wrote. “The states were required to bring the advisory opinion claim in an administrative complaint filed with the commission, not in a lawsuit filed with the district court. Because the District Court lacked jurisdiction, we reverse.”