Elaine Mittleman v. Postal Regulatory Commission, 411 U.S. App. D.C. 18

Three consolidated petitions challenged USPS decisions to discontinue/post-office relocations: Pimmit Branch (Falls Church, VA), Venice Post Office (Venice, CA), and Spring Dale Post Office (Spring Dale, WV).
Petitioners appealed each Postal Service determination to the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC). PRC dismissed appeals for Pimmit and Venice as not "closures" within 39 U.S.C. § 404(d)(5); it split 2–2 on Spring Dale, which affirmed the Postal Service decision under PRC practice.
Petitioners sought judicial review in this Court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and 39 U.S.C. § 3663 after PRC decisions.
While litigation was pending, USPS rescinded its closure decision for Spring Dale (keeping it open with reduced hours); the court found that petition moot and dismissed it.
The remaining claims (Pimmit and Venice) raised whether federal courts may review PRC closure/consolidation decisions under the APA or § 3663 when § 404(d)(5) states that "chapter 7 of title 5 shall not apply to any review carried out by the Commission under this paragraph."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PRC decisions on post-office closures/consolidations are reviewable under the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706)	APA review is available to set aside PRC decisions as arbitrary and capricious	§ 404(d)(5) explicitly excludes chapter 7 of title 5 (judicial review) from applying to PRC review, precluding APA suits	Congress precluded APA judicial review of PRC reviews under § 404(d)(5); APA review unavailable
Whether 39 U.S.C. § 3663 supplies APA-style judicial review of PRC orders on closures despite § 404(d)(5)	§ 3663 (2006) grants review "in accordance with section 706 of title 5," so APA review should apply	§ 404(d)(5) is a specific, earlier, express bar to APA review of closure/consolidation reviews and governs over the general § 3663	§ 3663 does not override the specific § 404(d)(5) ban; § 3663 permits review generally but not for closures/consolidations covered by § 404(d)(5)
Whether non‑statutory (ultra vires) review is available when APA review is precluded	Petitioners did not press an ultra vires claim	Non‑statutory review is narrow and limited to claims that an agency acted beyond statutory authority	Non‑statutory review is theoretically available only for ultra vires claims; petitioners made no such claim, so it was unavailable here
Mootness of Spring Dale petition	Petitioners sought to block closure	USPS rescinded closure decision and kept the office open (reduced hours)	Spring Dale petition is moot and dismissed

Conservation Force, Inc. v. Jewell, 733 F.3d 1200 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (mootness doctrine; no jurisdiction when no effective remedy remains)
Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67 (1983) (mootness principles)
Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (statutory limits on APA review and availability of non‑statutory review)
Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355 (2011) (chapter 7 of title 5 comprises APA judicial review)
N. Air Cargo v. U.S. Postal Serv., 674 F.3d 852 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Postal Service exempt from APA review under 39 U.S.C. § 410(a))
Air Courier Conference of Am. v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 498 U.S. 517 (1991) (judicial review provisions of APA are not jurisdictional; scope of review against Postal Service discussed)
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010) (harmonize statutory provisions; specific governs general canon)
RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065 (2012) (specific-over-general canon explained)
Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (repeals by implication disfavored; later statute does not repeal earlier specific provision absent clear intent)
Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958) (judicial review available when agency acts in excess of delegated powers)