Mike Sacks

@mikesacks.bsky.social

23.6Kfollowers

864following

2.4Kposts

NY-17 Congressional Candidate. Democracy advocate. Former political-legal journalist. Retired competitive air guitarist. Second-Best dad ever. mikesacksforcongress.com

Pinned posts

Pinned

Mike Sacks·Jul 6

Sure I didn't win my primary but at least I've got

114

Latest posts

Mike Sacks·21h

The reasoning may still be horrific and wrong, as the Roberts majority shows in case after case, but we should be able to know and assess their horrific and wrong reasoning behind every case.

Mike Sacks·22h

CADC says district court had no jurisdiction to block Trump’s attempt to mess with the USPS’s ability to process mail-in ballots in advance of the 2020 Election. media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/doc...

Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, WILKINS and RAO,
Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RAO.
RAO, Circuit Judge: In 2020, the United States Postal Service made changes to the collection, processing, and delivery of the mail. Several states and municipalities sued in district court, arguing in part that the postal changes would affect voting by mail in the November 2020 election. The district court entered a preliminary injunction against the postal changes and later granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on one of their claims.
We conclude the district court had no jurisdiction over that claim. Congress created a review scheme that channels certain complaints about Postal Service policies first to the Postal Regulatory Commission, with subsequent review in this court.
This statutory review scheme displaced the district court's jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claim. See Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). We therefore vacate the grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs.

In the summer of 2020, the Postal Service implemented a set of operational changes that we refer to as the "Postal Policy Changes." The Postal Policy Changes included a reduction in the number of high-speed mail sorting machines, a decrease in employee overtime, the elimination of late or extra mail delivery trips, and a change in the sequence by which some mail carriers sort and deliver the mail. Federal law requires the Postal Service to seek an advisory opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission before making a "change in the nature of postal services" that will "generally affect service on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis." 39 U.S.C.
§ 3661(b). The Postal Service did not request an advisory opinion from the Commission before making the Postal Policy Changes.
In the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Congress provided that complaints about certain Postal Service actions may be filed with the Commission, with review of Commission orders available exclusively in this court. Id.
S§ 3662-63.
The states of New York, New Jersey, and Hawaii, the city of New York, and the city and county of San Francisco (the
"States") opposed the Postal Policy Changes. Instead of making use of the Postal Commission review scheme, the States filed suit in district court. The States argued that the changes, implemented just months before the November 2020 general election, impeded their provision of public services and the ability of their residents to vote by mail. They raised three claims in their August 2020 complaint, including a claim that the Postal Service failed to request an advisory opinion from the Commission before making the Postal Policy Changes.

In September 2020, the district court held that the States were likely to succeed on the advisory opinion claim and granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Postal Policy Changes. The court rejected the government's argument that, under Thunder Basin, the Postal Commission review scheme precluded district court jurisdiction over the States' advisory opinion claim. In the district court's view, the review scheme provided a separate avenue for relief that did not displace the court's original jurisdiction over suits against the Postal Service. The court also emphasized that the review scheme would not provide the States with meaningful judicial review because the Commission may take up to 90 days to act on an administrative complaint, and the States needed immediate relief ahead of the November election. See 39
U.S.C. § 3662(b).
Two years later, the district court granted summary judgment for the States on the advisory opinion claim and for the government on the States' other claims. The court affirmed its previous holding that it had jurisdiction over the advisory opinion claim because the Postal Commission review scheme was merely supplemental and district court review was necessary for the States to obtain prompt relief from the Postal Policy Changes. Concluding that the States' advisory opinion claim succeeded on the merits, the district court permanently enjoined the Postal Service from implementing one of the Postal Policy Changes—the elimination of late or extra trips— without first requesting an advisory opinion from the Commission.

When Congress has channeled claims away from district courts, we must enforce that jurisdictional choice. Because of the Postal Commission review scheme, the district court had no jurisdiction over the States' advisory opinion claim.
Accordingly, we vacate the grant of summary judgment for the States and remand with instructions for the court to dismiss the advisory opinion claim.
So ordered.

Mike Sacks·1d

Fucking murderers.

Mike Sacks·1d

Philly booing everyone not a Phillie for the Derby rules

Mike Sacks·1d

Go birds

Mike Sacks·3d

Bucks County or bust

Mike Sacks·5d

Uhhhhhhh

Mike Sacks·6d

October 2025…

114

Mike Sacks·Jul 6

Dirtbags all the way down

Mike Sacks·Jul 6

In which @audrelawdamercy.blacksky.app, @elienyc.bsky.social, @leahlitman.bsky.social @somilbtrivedi.bsky.social and I show what a real Problem Solvers Caucus must do to solve our democracy’s biggest problem of all

View all posts on Bluesky

Menu

Mike Sacks

Pinned posts

Top posts

Latest posts