This lawsuit challenges some of the controversial and well-publicized changes to the operation of the Postal Service implemented by U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy. In July 2020, the Postal Service instituted a set of policies that have collectively been referred to as the “Leave Mail Behind” policy. Among other things, the policy directs letter carriers – contrary to the training that they have traditionally received – to leave for their routes on time and to make just one trip, even if it means leaving mail behind.
A group of 14 states, led by Washington, went to federal court to challenge the policy, which they contend was introduced for political, rather than business, reasons. They argued that the policy, along with a decision by USPS to no longer treat election mail as first-class mail, has caused delays in delivery and postmarking that could disenfranchise voters. Before making these kinds of changes, they alleged, USPS should have asked the Postal Regulatory Commission, which is an independent agency that has the power to review the USPS’ policies and performance, to weigh in.
On September 20, U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian issued an order that temporarily blocks USPS from implementing the changes outlined in the July 2020 policy and requires USPS to treat election mail as first-class mail. Bastian explained that even if it is “not necessarily apparent on the surface, at the heart of DeJoy’s and the Postal Service’s actions is voter disenfranchisement.” To support this conclusion, Bastian pointed to the president’s “highly partisan words and tweets, the actual impact of the changes on primary elections that resulted in uncounted ballots, and recent attempts and lawsuits by the Republican National Committee and President Trump’s campaign to stop the States’ efforts to bypass the Postal Service by utilizing ballot drop boxes, as well as the timing of the changes.” And his order must apply nationwide, Bastian reasoned, because it is “easy to envision situations where the mail needs to cross state lines, for example, residents who are residing out of state and want to send in an absentee ballot.”
|Date||Proceedings and Orders|
|August 18, 2020||Initial complaint for injunctive relief filed by Washington and 13 other states in district court|
|September 15, 2020||Opposition to motion for preliminary injunction filed by Department of Justice|
|September 17, 2020||Nationwide injunction issued by district court|
|September 23, 2020||Motion to clarify preliminary injunction filed by Department of Justice|
|October 2, 2020||District court order granting in part motion to clarify preliminary injunction|
The Supreme Court got rid of several cases this morning -- in one fell swoop. Read @AHoweBlogger's latest coverage of the emoluments cases, spiritual advisers at Texas executions, Texas abortion policies, COVID restrictions, and NY political corruption.
Justices vacate rulings on Trump and emoluments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday morning released orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Jan. 22. The justices once again did not ac...
In this morning's orders list, SCOTUS took no action on pending cert petitions involving:
- Mississippi's near-ban on abortions after 15 weeks,
- a Trump rule banning Title X clinics from providing abortion referrals,
- the Trump administration's "public charge" immigration rule.
No real opinions today. The Supreme Court dismissed cert as "improvidently granted" in Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.—a case about arbitration agreements.
That's all for today, folks.
The Supreme Court does not add any cases to its docket. It sends the Trump emoluments case back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss as moot.
Here is the orders list. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012521zor_3f14.pdf
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.