Case: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. DeJoy
2:20-cv-04096 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Filed Date: Aug. 21, 2020
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a case about changes to U.S. Postal Service operations in the run-up to the 2020 general election. In May 2020, then-President Trump appointed a campaign donor as Postmaster General; he was confirmed in June 2020. In July, the new Postmaster General instituted a variety of USPS policy changes which were ostensibly intended to cut costs. The plaintiffs here were the states of Pennsylvania, California, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, as well as the District of Columbia. On August 21, 2020, they sued the Postmaster General, the Chairman of the USPS Board of Governors, and the Postal Service in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The states claimed that the USPS policy changes would slow mail delivery. Slower mail delivery, the states reasoned, would impinge their interests in the functioning of the state court systems (which rely on timely mail deliveries) and, importantly, the administration of the 2020 general election (which, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, would involve millions of mail-in ballots in the plaintiff states). Represented by their respective attorneys general, the states alleged that the policy changes thus violated:
- The Postal Reorganization Act by:
- Failing to seek an advisory opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission or a comment period before instituting USPS policy changes with nationwide impact (count one)
- Failing to meet the Act’s nationwide mail delivery speed standards (count two)
- The Elections and Electors Clauses of the U.S. Constitution by interfering with the states’ regulations of the “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” (count three)
- The 26th Amendment by interfering with the states’ abilities to count validly-cast mail-in ballots (count four)
The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 2, 2020, the states moved for a preliminary nationwide injunction, seeking an order from the court for the Postal Service to reverse the policy changes instituted by the new Postmaster General, including orders: (1) ceasing a prohibition on late or extra mail trips, (2) ending limitations on the use of overtime, and (3) requiring the USPS to automatically prioritize Election Mail. The case was assigned to District Judge Gerald A. McHugh. In reviewing the parties’ briefs for the preliminary injunction, Judge McHugh incorporated testimony from Jones v. United States Postal Service, a similar case brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court held a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction on September 24, 2020. During the hearing, the plaintiffs clarified that they only sought an injunction on counts one and three.
On September 28, 2020, Judge McHugh granted in part the preliminary injunction. The court found it had subject matter jurisdiction under the Postal Reorganization Act to adjudicate the states’ statutory claim. Next, the court turned to standing. Invoking Massachusetts v. EPA, Judge McHugh found that Pennsylvania had alleged harms to its sovereign interest in timely mail delivery sufficient to establish standing to sue for the procedural violations of the Postal Reorganization Act. And California’s allegations of untimely and erroneous mail delivery were sufficient to establish standing on the constitutional claim. The court then found that the plaintiffs had shown a reasonable probability that they would succeed on merits of their statutory claim that the defendants were required to seek an advisory opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission before instituting the challenged policies. The defendants had acted ultra vires by failing to do so. Further, the plaintiffs had demonstrated irreparable injury absent an injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting an injunction. Indeed, the court issued a nationwide injunction, finding it “highly impractical to craft a remedy specific to the plaintiff states.” The injunction specifically instructed the Postal Service to remove the prohibition on late and extra mail trips, ended the limitation on the use of overtime, and to prioritize Election Mail, as the plaintiffs had requested. The injunction also incorporated the September 25, 2020 injunction that the Southern District of New York had issued in Jones v. United States Postal Service. The court declined to address the constitutional claim given that the statutory claims resolved the case. 490 F.Supp.3d 833.
On October 5, 2020, the defendants moved for the court to clarify the injunction. On October 9, the court granted the motion, providing more precise guidance language for the Postal Service to implement the order. On October 13, the plaintiffs requested the appointment of an independent monitor to supervise Postal Service compliance with the injunction. The court denied the request as unnecessary and impractical on October 21.
The litigation continued after the 2020 general election concluded. The defendants appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on November 27, 2020 (USCA no. 20-3419). The district court granted the defendants’ unopposed motion to stay district court deadlines on December 14, 2020. On January 20, 2021 the Third Circuit granted the defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal.
Over the course of spring 2021, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs’ motions admitted claims three and four were moot, but argued argued that they were entitled to summary judgment on counts one and two; the defendants’ motions claimed the plaintiffs lacked standing on those claims, that the court had no subject matter jurisdiction over them, that the claims were moot, and that even if none of that were true, the defendants were entitled on the merits to summary judgment.
On July 1, 2021, the court ordered defendants to provide weekly status reports through August 13 on the service performance of First Class Mail; the defendants complied with the order in full. On August 11, the court ordered the defendants to continue to provide the weekly First Class Mail status reports indefinitely.
The court heard oral argument on the summary judgment motions on July 21, 2021. In response to these motions, on August 25, 2021, the court dismissed counts one, three, and four as moot, and ordered an evidentiary hearing on count two. Judge McHugh explained that the plaintiffs had dropped all challenges under count one except the procedural challenge to the policy reducing late and extra trips. But, the court found, subsequent Postal Service policymaking had provided the plaintiffs with the ability to comment on/object to the late and extra trip policy after March 2021, and that the plaintiffs had accordingly objected to the policy changes in June of that year. Therefore, the court dismissed count one as moot. The court then moved on to count two, that the Postal Service policy changes violated its statutory obligations to expeditiously transport “important letter mail” and generally provide adequate and efficient postal services. The court found it had subject matter jurisdiction to review the claim except to the extent that the Postal Review Commission had exclusive jurisdiction to evaluate the “quality of service” the USPS rendered. The court then agreed with the defendants that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the policy changes had slowed the mail in a way that harmed the plaintiffs except for two policies — the late and extra trip policy and the overtime policy. For those claims only, the court found that disputes of fact remained as to whether the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient injury-in-fact to have standing. Finally, the court disagreed with the defendants that policy revisions had mooted the plaintiffs’ claims as to late/extra deliveries. The court determined that the policy changes “only addresse[d] the problem at its surface,” such that the court could still order effective relief. In sum, the court ordered an evidentiary hearing as to whether the plaintiffs had alleged injury-in-fact on their count two late/extra trip and overtime policy claims, and dismissed counts one, three, and four as moot. 556 F.Supp.3d 461.
On May 13, 2022, the plaintiffs and defendants submitted to the court a proposed Settlement Agreement intended to resolve the remaining issues in the case and to establish a framework for continued cooperation between the Postal Service and the plaintiff states concerning election mail operations and oversight. The proposal outlined several key commitments:
(i) Issuance of National Guidance Documents (para. 2 and 3). The Postal Service would periodically issue national guidance in advance of the Primary and General Elections for the 2022, 2024, 2026, and 2028 federal election cycles, ensuring consistent operational standards across the country. These documents would reflect the Postal Service’s good faith efforts to maintain practices comparable to those used during the 2020 general election, while remaining adaptable to any subsequent statutory or regulatory changes.
(ii) Outreach and Consultation Mechanisms (para. 4). The Postal Service would convene outreach meetings with representatives of the plaintiff states at defined intervals during each election cycle. The purpose of these meetings would be to facilitate communication, answer questions, and discuss ongoing or anticipated measures related to the processing and delivery of election mail.
(iii) Transparency and Performance Reporting (para. 5). The Postal Service would provide regular reports on First-Class and Marketing Mail service performance, including delivery data across various operational levels. These reports were intended to preserve transparency and enable oversight, particularly during the periods preceding the 2024 General Election and other subsequent federal elections. The proposal also allowed that, if future legal or regulatory changes required the Postal Service to make similar data publicly available, such public disclosure would satisfy its reporting obligation under the agreement.
The parties stipulated that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce certain provisions of the settlement—specifically those concerning national guidance, outreach meetings, and reporting—subject to the limitations detailed in the agreement. The proposal further clarified that nothing in the Settlement required the Postal Service to implement any specific operational measures for prioritizing or handling election mail in any given year. Upon approval, the settlement would result in the dismissal with prejudice of the plaintiffs’ remaining claims for relief and the dissolution of all pending interlocutory orders.
The court approved the Stipulation of Settlement on May 17. Monitoring of the case continues as of October 2025; the settlement remains effective through the 2028 election cycle, with the court retaining jurisdiction over those matters.
Summary Authors
John Juenemann (4/18/2022)
Augusto Colín (10/25/2025)
Related Cases
Jones v. United States Postal Service, Southern District of New York (2020)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17466141/parties/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-v-dejoy/
Becerra, Xavier (California)
BOYCE, SARAH G. (Pennsylvania)
Boyer, Jacob (Pennsylvania)
BORSON, JOSEPH E. (Pennsylvania)
Cholera, Kuntal (District of Columbia)
BOYCE, SARAH G. (Pennsylvania)
Downes, Brendan (District of Columbia)
Ehrlich, Lisa Catherine (California)
Fischer, Michael J (Pennsylvania)
Konopka, Kathleen (District of Columbia)
Kovatis, Stephen R. (Pennsylvania)
Kravitz, David C. (Massachusetts)
Racine, Karl A. (District of Columbia)
Shapiro, Joshua D. (Pennsylvania)
SUITTER, PAUL E. (Pennsylvania)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17466141/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-v-dejoy/
Last updated June 28, 2026, 4:55 a.m.
Docket for: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DeJOY
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 21, 2020
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Six states and the District of Columbia
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Chairman
Postmaster General
United States Postal Service
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:20-cv-04096
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 20-03419
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
National / Universal injunction
Issues
General/Misc.:
Voting:
Case Summary of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. DeJoy, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/17966/ (last updated 10/25/2025).