64 F.4th 1354
D.C. Cir.2023Background:
- USPS ran a customized-postage program (via vendor Zazzle) allowing customers to upload, pay for, and print personalized postage.
- Anatol Zukerman submitted a politically critical design (an Uncle Sam image criticizing Citizens United) that Zazzle/USPS rejected as partisan while other political designs were accepted.
- Zukerman sued for viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment; in response USPS issued 2018 Guidelines banning "political" stamps and terminated vendors.
- The D.C. Circuit (Zukerman v. USPS) held the 2018 Guidelines facially unconstitutional and that Zukerman’s as-applied claim was not moot; on remand USPS shuttered the customized-postage program entirely.
- The district court granted summary judgment and declaratory relief for Zukerman but denied injunctive relief (refusing to order printing of the stamp or a recall/decertification of existing political postage) as infeasible; Zukerman appealed the denial of injunctive relief.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed: Zukerman has standing, declaratory relief was proper, and denial of injunctive relief was not an abuse of discretion given the program’s closure and the impracticability of his requested remedies.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive/declaratory relief | Zukerman: past viewpoint discrimination + continuing effects (he still lacks his stamps) confer standing | USPS: like Lyons, no likelihood of future injury so injunction standing fails | Held: Zukerman has Article III standing for both remedies based on past injury and continuing adverse effects |
| Facial challenge to 2018 Guidelines banning "political" stamps | Zukerman: ban is viewpoint/content-based and lacks workable standards | USPS: Guidelines addressed concerns and supplanted prior policy | Held (prior D.C. Cir. decision): 2018 Guidelines facially unconstitutional for banning "political" content |
| Appropriateness of injunctive relief (order to print stamp or recall political postage) | Zukerman: equity requires courts to give complete relief—order USPS to print/decertify stamps | USPS: program terminated; courts would have to resurrect program or perform impracticable, resource-intensive review and risk political entanglement | Held: Denial of injunctive relief affirmed—district court did not abuse discretion given logistical, legal, and public-interest burdens |
| Validity/sufficiency of declaratory relief; appealability of favorable judgment | Zukerman: declaratory judgment alone is illusory and fails to cure ongoing injury | USPS: declaratory relief is a proper, independent remedy and can have preclusive and practical effects | Held: Declaratory judgment appropriate; district court acted within discretion; prevailing plaintiff cannot appeal a favorable judgment to obtain broader relief |
Key Cases Cited
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (permanent-injunction four-factor test)
- United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (injunction requires cognizable danger of recurrent violation)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (standing for prospective relief requires likelihood of future injury)
- Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787 (standing elements overview)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (standing must be shown separately for each form of relief)
- Zukerman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 961 F.3d 431 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (held 2018 Guidelines facially unconstitutional and as-applied claim not moot)
- Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (Declaratory Judgment Act confers court discretion to grant declaratory relief)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (when government is defendant, balance-of-equities and public-interest factors merge)
- Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (scope of equitable relief should not exceed complete relief)
- Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (declaratory judgments may be basis for later injunctive relief and have preclusive effects)