New York v. Trump

• Decision Date: 27 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 20-cv-2340(EGS),20-cv-2340(EGS)
• Citation: 490 F.Supp.3d 225
• Parties: State of NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

490 F.Supp.3d 225

State of NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Donald J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants.

No. 20-cv-2340(EGS)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed September 27, 2020

Elena Goldstein, Attorney General's Office for the State of New York, Lindsay McKenzie, Morenike Fajana, Daniela Nogueira, Matthew Colangelo, New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of New York.

Lori N. Tanigawa, Honolulu, HI, Matthew Colangelo, New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of Hawaii.

Tim Sheehan, Estelle Bronstein, Office of the Attorney General, Trenton, NJ, Matthew Colangelo, New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff State of New Jersey.

Aaron M. Bloom, Joseph Pepe, New York City Law Department, Matthew Colangelo, New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff City of New York.

Dennis Jose Herrera, City and County of San Francisco, Kevin Yeh, San Francisco City Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, Matthew Colangelo, New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco.

Joseph Evan Borson, Kuntal Virendra Cholera, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Emmet G. Sullivan, United States District Judge

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs, the States of New York, Hawaii, and New Jersey; the City of New York; and the City and County of San Francisco filed this lawsuit against Defendants Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Louis DeJoy ("Mr. DeJoy"), in his official capacity as Postmaster General of the United States; and the United States Postal Service ("USPS") or ("Postal Service") alleging the following claims: (1) Ultra Vires Agency Action—Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act; (2) Ultra Vires Agency Action—Postal Reorganization Act; and (3) violation of the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction with regard to their Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act claim. Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs’ motion, the response, and reply thereto, the applicable law, and the entire record, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.

II. Background

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

In the Postal Reorganization Act ("PRA"), Public Law 91-375, 84 Stat. 719 (Aug. 12, 1970), Congress replaced the Post Office Department with the United States Postal Service as "an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, under the direction of a Board of Governors, with the Postmaster General as its chief executive officer." 39 C.F.R. § 1.1. The PRA also created an independent oversight body for the USPS, the Postal Rate Commission. 39 U.S.C. § 501. Congress passed the PRA to "[i]nsulate" the management of the USPS "from partisan politics ... by having the Postmaster General responsible to the [Postal Rate] Commission, which represents the public interest only, for his conduct of the affairs of the Postal Service." H.R. Rep. No. 91-1104, 3660-61 (1970).

In the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act ("PAEA"), Pub. L. No. 109-435, 120 Stat. 3198 (Dec. 20, 2006) (codified at 39 U.S.C. § 3600 et seq.), Congress replaced the Postal Rate Commission with the Postal Regulatory Commission ("PRC" or "Commission") and "strengthened its role." Carlson v. Postal Regul. Comm'n , 938 F.3d 337, 340 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

The USPS is responsible for "develop[ing] and promot[ing] adequate and efficient postal services." 39 U.S.C. § 3661(a). "When the Postal Service determines that there should be a change in the nature of postal services [that] will generally affect service on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis," it must "submit a proposal, within a reasonable time prior to the effective date of such proposal, to the Postal Regulatory Commission requesting an advisory opinion on the change." Id. § 3661(b). This provision was enacted in the PRA, and the only change made in the PAEA was to replace the original "Postal Rate Commission" with the "Postal Regulatory Commission."

Following the submission of a proposal, "[t]he Commission shall not issue its opinion on any proposal until an opportunity for hearing on the record under [the Administrative Procedure Act] has been accorded the Postal Service, users of the mail, and an officer of the Commission who shall be required to represent the interests of the general public. The opinion shall be in writing and shall include a certification by each Commissioner agreeing with the opinion that in his judgment the opinion conforms to the policies established under this title." 39 U.S.C. § 3661(c).

B. Factual Background

1. The COVID-19 Pandemic

Plaintiffs assert that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased reliance on mail delivered by the USPS. See Mem. Supp. Mot. Prelim. Inj. ("Mot."), ECF No. 12-1 at 8.¹ According to Plaintiffs, " ‘[b]ecause COVID-19 is ‘primarily spread through person-to-person contact,’ Ku^{[2 ]} Decl.[, ECF No. 12-13] ¶ 13, state and local governments, including Plaintiffs here, have undertaken serious efforts to minimize in-person gatherings.’ " Id. Plaintiffs further state that "some ... have transformed their plans for the November 2020 election to facilitate voting by mail." Id. (citing Adinaro³ Decl., ECF No. 12-4 ¶ 9; Kellner⁴ Decl., ECF No. 12-12 ¶¶ 16–17; Ku Decl., ECF No. 12-13 ¶¶ 8–10; P.L. 2020, ch.72 (N.J. August 28, 2020) (providing that New Jersey's November General Election is to be conducted primarily by vote-by-mail in part to reduce the risk of community spread of COVID-19 at polling locations)). Those Plaintiffs that have "mail-based election systems" in place "seek to preserve [them] during a pandemic." Id. (citing Henricks⁵ Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 12-9; Kaohu⁶ Decl., ECF No. 12-11 ¶ 3; Takahashi⁷ Decl., ECF No. 12-19 ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs state they "have also expended time, money, and resources to educate the public about social distancing, see Adinaro Decl., ECF No. 12-4 ¶ 8, and to continue to meet their legal obligations to their residents and to administer public benefits programs by increased reliance on U.S. mail, Banks⁸ Decl., ECF No. 12-5 ¶¶ 4–7, 11, 14; Newton⁹ Decl., ECF No. 12-15 ¶ 9." Id.

2. USPS Postal Policy Changes

In June and July 2020, the USPS announced and implemented four changes (collectively, "Postal Policy Changes") to how it collects, processes and delivers mail. First, on June 17, 2020, the USPS announced that it would be removing 671 high-speed sorting machines nationwide "over the next several months." Pls.’ Ex. 17, ECF No. 12-20 at 2-4.

Second, on July 10, 2020, the USPS announced an "operational pivot" to make "immediate, lasting, and impactful changes in our operations and culture." Pls.’ Ex. 21, ECF No. 12-24 at 2. These changes included prohibiting "late trips" and "extra trips." Id. "[I]t has long been typical for postal drivers to depart for post offices or delivery points a short period after the prescribed time if needed to ensure that all the mail for that truck would be loaded before departure." Coradi¹⁰ Decl., ECF No. 12-34 ¶ 13. "Extra" trips are non-scheduled delivery trips, which ensure that the agency can maintain the necessary flexibility to timely deliver mail to 160 million addresses for six days a week, id. ¶¶ 5, 14; and have long allowed the agency to account for daily fluctuations in mail volume, processing malfunctions or errors, and other disruptions, id. ¶¶ 13-4. Late trips and extra trips "are needed adjustments to adequately administer a system responsible for delivering over 470 million pieces of mail per day. They are features of the postal system, not bugs." Id. ¶ 14.

The USPS knew that prohibiting these trips would result in delayed mail delivery: "One aspect of these changes that may be difficult for employees is that—temporarily—we may see mail left behind or mail on the workroom floor or docks (in P&DCs), which is not typical." Pls.’ Ex. 21, ECF No. 12-24 at 2. By August 13, 2020, the USPS had reduced the number of late trips by 71 percent. Pls.’ Ex. 19, ECF No. 12-22 at 2. Defendants have clarified that late or extra trips are not "banned"; however, they acknowledge that they continue "at a reduced level." Suppl. Cintron Decl., ECF No. 39-1 ¶ 4. On September 21, 2020, USPS also issued "Operational Instructions" providing that "transportation, in the form of late or extra trips that are reasonably necessary to complete timely mail delivery, is not to be unreasonably restricted or prohibited. Managers are authorized to use their best business judgment to meet our service commitments." See Ex. 1 to Notice Suppl. Material, ECF No. 50-1 at 4.

Third, the USPS announced another "initiative" that prohibited mail carriers in certain cities from spending time in the morning sorting mail so they could "leave for the street earlier." Pls.’ Ex. 22, ECF No. 12-25 at 2. This meant that carriers were being ordered to not deliver mail that had arrived overnight, but rather sort it in the afternoon, meaning that it would not be delivered until the next day. Id . On August 24, 2020, Mr. DeJoy testified that he stopped this pilot project. See House Oversight and Reform Committee Hearing Tr. ("House Committee Hearing"), Aug. 24, 2020, Defs.’ Ex. 14, ECF No. 30-3 at 449.

Fourth, on or around July 29, 2020, the USPS General Counsel informed 46 states and the District of Columbia that if the states did not pay First Class postage on ballots sent to voters, there would be a risk that voters would not receive their ballots in time to return them by mail. See U.S. Postal Service letters to states, Wash. Post (Aug. 17, 2020), https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/d1b752f9-f8c9-4c18-b548-4eb9668c672a/note/36253644-7029-4dd3-bd1c-f824054400c2.¹¹ This was a change to the USPS policy of treating election...