496 F.Supp.3d 165
D.D.C.2020Background
- Plaintiffs are four registered voters from TX, PA, NY, and WI who say they did not receive absentee/mail‑in ballots in 2020 primaries and seek prospective relief to protect their November 2020 votes.
- In June–July 2020 USPS implemented multiple operational changes (eliminating/limiting overtime, removing some sorting machines and collection boxes, reducing/curtailing late/extra transportation trips, changing carrier morning‑sorting practices, reassigning executives, and a hiring freeze). Some actions were later suspended or partially limited.
- USPS and third‑party data showed a nationwide decline in on‑time First‑Class Mail delivery in the weeks after the July changes; USPS warned states it could not guarantee all ballots would arrive in time.
- Plaintiffs sued the President (official capacity), Postmaster General (official capacity), and USPS alleging deprivation of the right to vote, civil conspiracy, and ultra vires agency action, and moved for a preliminary injunction with multiple specific operational remedies.
- The district court held Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their constitutional (right‑to‑vote/Fifth Amendment) claim under the Anderson‑Burdick framework, found irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favor relief, and granted in part and denied in part the requested injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (future injury) | Plaintiffs face a substantial risk of disenfranchisement in Nov. because USPS changes caused and continue to cause mail delays. | Past primary delays do not establish a certainly impending future injury; alternative causes exist and USPS is remedying service. | Plaintiffs have standing: increased‑risk standing is satisfied; delays are ongoing and fairly traceable to USPS changes. |
| Applicable standard for vote claim | Delays that impair mail ballots during a pandemic impose a substantial burden; apply Anderson‑Burdick (balancing) or strict scrutiny for severe burdens. | USPS changes are indirect and regulatory; rational‑basis (per McDonald) should apply. | Anderson‑Burdick likely applies; strict scrutiny not automatic but higher scrutiny warranted given severity during a pandemic. |
| Merits (constitutional/equal‑protection) | Nationwide, arbitrary/postal delays risk large‑scale ballot invalidation/disenfranchisement and particularly burden voters who cannot safely vote in person. | USPS policies aim to increase efficiency and cut costs; any burden is incidental and rationally related to these interests. | Plaintiffs likely to succeed: the burden on voting is significant and not justified by defendants’ generalized efficiency/cost reasons. |
| Preliminary relief scope | Broad relief restoring Jan 1 operations, reinstall machines/mailboxes, restore overtime/hiring, mandate late deliveries, reinstate reassigned personnel, and bar other interference; appoint special master. | Court supervision is inappropriate; USPS is addressing Election Mail and has capacity; relief should be narrow. | Court grants limited relief (restore overtime approvals and require USPS to make late deliveries as needed), denies broad return‑to‑Jan‑1, machine/mailbox reinstatement, wholesale personnel/hiring orders, and refuses to appoint a special master. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary‑injunction standard; need to show likely irreparable harm)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (Anderson‑Burdick balancing framework for election‑related burdens)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (scope of scrutiny depends on character and magnitude of burden on voting)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires concrete injury, causation, redressability)
- McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago, 394 U.S. 802 (U.S. 1969) (absentee‑ballot context; rational‑basis review when absentee denial is not a total bar)
- Attias v. CareFirst, Inc., 865 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (increased‑risk standing analysis applied to future harms)
- Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1963) (constitutional rights cannot be denied on cost‑saving grounds)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2000) (once franchise is granted, arbitrary unequal treatment of votes raises equal‑protection concerns)