The block of U.S. Postal Service changes in 2020 to how it handled mail was erroneously entered by a federal judge, a U.S. appeals court ruled on July 14.
"We conclude the district court had no jurisdiction over that claim. Congress created a review scheme that channels certain complaints about Postal Service policies first to the Postal Regulatory Commission, with subsequent review in this court," she wrote. "This statutory review scheme displaced the district court’s jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claim. … We therefore vacate the grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs."
The changes in question, implemented in mid-2020, included prohibiting late and extra trips, in a bid to transform the debt-ridden quasi-governmental service into a more efficient operation.
New York and other states sued the service and the president shortly after the changes were announced, alleging that mail was piling up and that mail-in ballots for the November 2020 election would likely not all be delivered in time.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington blocked the changes in a 2020 decision, ruling that the changes had reduced service levels and would probably have a negative impact on mail ballots in the election amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
"Plaintiffs have provided ample evidence that mail delays are likely to cause more residents to vote in person which in turn is likely to impede the spread of the virus," he said as he imposed a preliminary injunction.
Sullivan in 2022 entered summary judgment, or a permanent ruling, in favor of the states. He said that he decided he had the jurisdiction to review the case, because the law channeling complaints to the Postal Regulatory Commission used the word "may," which indicated that it did not preclude judicial review.
The appeals court panel disagreed, finding that Congress's creation of the updated review scheme was intended to displace district court jurisdiction. The court noted that other appeals courts have reached the same conclusion.
The appeals court vacated Sullivan's summary judgment and remanded the case to him with instructions to dismiss the case.