CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 11/21/2023 1

Allegations of Politically Motivated 

Degradations of Postal Services 

Jones v. United States Postal Service (Victor Marrero, 

S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-6516); National Urban League v. DeJoy 

(George L. Russell III, D. Md. 1:20-cv-2391); Washington 

v. Trump (Stanley A. Bastian, E.D. Wash. 1:20-cv-3127); 

Pennsylvania v. DeJoy (Gerald Austin McHugh, E.D. Pa. 

2:20-cv-4096); and Richardson v. Trump (1:20-cv-2262), 

NAACP v. United States Postal Service (1:20-cv-2295), 

New York v. Trump (1:20-cv-2340), and Vote Forward 

v. DeJoy (1:20-cv-2405) (Emmet G. Sullivan, D.D.C.) 

Lawsuits filed in five districts alleged that operation changes by the 

postal service during a global infectious pandemic would interfere 

with alternatives to risky in-person voting. Four district judges issued preliminary injunctions. The lawsuits were largely resolved 

following the inauguration of a new presidential administration. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots; 

early voting; Covid-19; case assignment; enforcing orders; class 

action. 

Federal complaints filed in late August 2020 alleged that recent changes in 

postal-service policy were seriously degrading mail service and endangering 

mail-in voting, made necessary by a global infectious pandemic. District 

judges in four districts issued preliminary injunctions. 

Southern District of New York 

On Monday, August 17, 2020, fifteen plaintiffs, including candidates and 

voters, filed a federal class-action complaint in the Southern District of New 

York against the postal service, the postmaster general, and the President, 

alleging that “President Donald J. Trump and his newly appointed Postmaster General Louis DeJoy have set about to ensure [the postal service] cannot 

reliably deliver election mail.”1

 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a notice that the case was related to a July 17 case in which Judge Analisa Torres 

issued an injunction on August 3 concerning postmarks for absentee ballots.2

1. Complaint at 2, Jones v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 1:20-cv-6516 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020), 

D.E. 1; Jones v. U.S. Postal Serv., 488 F. Supp. 3d 103, 109, 112–13 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); see

Amended Complaint, Jones, No. 1:20-cv-6516 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2020), D.E. 36. 

2. Notice, Jones, No. 1:20-cv-6516 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020), D.E. 3; Gallagher v. N.Y. 

State Bd. of Elections, 477 F. Supp. 3d 19, 27 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (deciding which absentee ballots without postmarks would be counted); see Gallagher v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, 496 

F. Supp. 3d 842, 845 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (declining to extend the injunction to cover the general 

election); see also Modifying the Postmark Requirement for Mailed Ballots in New York, 

www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/materials/10/EE-NYS-1-20-cv-5504-Gallagher.pdf. 
Allegations of Politically Motivated Degradations of Postal Services 

2 Federal Judicial Center 11/21/2023 

Judge Torres declined assignment of the case, and the court assigned it to 

Judge Victor Marrero.3

On August 19, the plaintiffs requested a preliminary-injunction hearing 

on September 3 or soon thereafter.4

 In the event, Judge Marrero and the parties agreed to a completion of briefing by September 9,5

 and Judge Marrero 

set the case for hearing on September 16: “Due to the ongoing COVID-19 

pandemic, the hearing will take place by teleconference using [posted contact 

information].”6

On September 15, Judge Marrero declined to compel the postmaster general to testify at the hearing, because of the availability of his recent congressional testimony.7

 Finding that the defendants “have not provided trusted 

assurance and comfort that citizens will be able to cast ballots with full confidence that their votes would be timely collected and counted,” Judge Marrero issued a preliminary injunction on September 21.8

[B]y not later than noon on September 25, 2020 the parties shall settle an 

Order providing Plaintiffs appropriate relief consistent with this opinion 

and notify the Court of such settlement. In the event the parties fail to file 

such notice by that date [a list of twenty-two specific terms designed to improve mail service] shall take effect without further action by this 

Court . . . .9

Judge Marrero approved a settled injunction on September 2510 and issued orders clarifying obligations respecting overtime pay from September 

29 to October 9.11

District of Maryland 

One day after the New York complaint was filed, three organizations filed a 

federal complaint in the District of Maryland, alleging, “Defendants Louis 

DeJoy (the United States Postmaster General) and the United States Postal 

Service have made sweeping changes to the Postal Service’s policies and pro3. Docket Sheet, Jones, No. 1:20-cv-6516 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020). 

4. Letter, id. (Aug. 19, 2020), D.E. 10. 

5. Endorsed Letter, id. (Aug. 25, 2020), D.E. 15; Endorsed Letter, id. (Sept. 9, 2020), D.E. 

35; see Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id. (Sept. 2, 2020), D.E. 19. 

6. Order, id. (Aug. 9, 2020, filed Aug. 10, 2020), D.E. 37; see Transcript, id. (Sept. 16, 

2020, filed Sept. 22, 2020), D.E. 51. 

7. Order, id. (Sept. 15, 2020), D.E. 43, 2020 WL 5525748. 

8. Jones v. U.S. Postal Serv., 488 F. Supp. 3d 103, 109, 112, 141–43 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); see

Luke Broadwater, Court Says Mail Votes Get Priority in Delivery, N.Y. Times, Sept. 22, 2020, 

at A15; Spencer S. Hsu, Third Federal Judge Bars Cuts to Postal Service Deliveries Before Election, Wash. Post, Sept. 28, 2020, at A6. 

9. Jones, 488 F. Supp. 3d at 141. 

10. Settled Injunction, Jones, No. 1:20-cv-6516 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2020), D.E. 57. 

11. Opinion, id. (Oct. 9, 2020), D.E. 82; Opinion, id. (Oct. 8, 2020), D.E. 81, 2020 WL 

5983112; Opinion, id. (Sept. 29, 2020), D.E. 66, 2020 WL 6554904; see Order, id. (Sept. 25, 

2020), D.E. 56 (“the parties had agreed to all terms of a proposed order with the exception of 

one, concerning the appropriate relief with respect to overtime”). 
Allegations of Politically Motivated Degradations of Postal Services 

Federal Judicial Center 11/21/2023 3

cedures with the purpose and intent to sabotage mail-in voting in the upcoming 2020 national elections.”12

Eight days later, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conduct limited expedited 

discovery,13 and on the following day, they filed a motion for expedited consideration of that motion.14 On the next day, Judge George L. Russell III ordered briefing on the discovery motion to be completed by September 2,15 on 

which day he granted expedited discovery.16

The plaintiffs filed a motion on September 25 for a preliminary injunction.17

Eastern District of Washington 

On the same day that the Maryland complaint was filed, fourteen states—

Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, 

New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and 

Wisconsin—filed a federal complaint in the Eastern District of Washington 

against the President, the postmaster general, and the postal service, seeking 

remedies for alleged degradation of mail service at a time when the states 

would be relying on it among other accommodations in the operation of 

elections because of the Covid-19 pandemic.18 Three days later, the plaintiffs 

filed a motion for expedited discovery19 and a motion to expedite consideration of that motion.20

On August 24, Judge Stanley A. Bastian granted the second motion and 

set the case for a videoconference hearing on August 27.21 Because of the 

Covid-19 pandemic, the Yakima courthouse was closed to the public; Judge 

Bastian’s order provided a public telephone-access number for the hearing.22

He said that he expected the next hearing to include an in-person option: 

Thank you for joining me this afternoon, and I appreciate the fact that you 

were willing to do this by video and telephone link. . . . 

I think the next hearing we have, I will make arrangements to be in the 

courtroom. And, of course, anybody who is appearing on that next motion 

or the next hearing is welcome to be in the courtroom with me, but given 

the pandemic, I hesitate to require anybody to expose themselves to infec12. Complaint at 1, Nat’l Urban League v. DeJoy, No. 1:20-cv-2391 (D. Md. Aug. 18, 

2020), D.E. 1. 

13. Motion, id. (Aug. 26, 2020), D.E. 22. 

14. Motion, id. (Aug. 27, 2020), D.E. 23. 

15. Order, id. (Aug. 28, 2020), D.E. 24. 

16. Order, id. (Sept. 3, 2020), D.E. 31, 2020 WL 8413573. 

17. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id. (Sept. 25, 2020), D.E. 49. 

18. Complaint, Washington v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-3127 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 18, 2020), 

D.E. 1. 

19. Motion, id. (Aug. 21, 2020), D.E. 14. 

20. Motion, id. (Aug. 21, 2020), D.E. 16. 

21. Order, id. (Aug. 24, 2020), D.E. 23. 

22. Id.; E.D. Wash. Gen. Order 20-101-9 (Aug. 21, 2020); see Joseph O’Sullivan, Judge 

Orders Postal Service to Detail Election-Related Changes, Seattle Times, Aug. 28, 2020, at A1. 
Allegations of Politically Motivated Degradations of Postal Services 

4 Federal Judicial Center 11/21/2023 

tion by traveling. So it’s completely up to you, and we will make video and 

telephone attendance possible then as well.23

Judge Bastian granted expedited discovery and set the case for another 

hearing on September 17.24 At that hearing, one day after the hearing before 

Judge Morrero in New York, attorneys for Washington appeared in person, 

attorneys for other states appeared by telephone, and the attorney for the 

government appeared by video.25 Judge Bastian also considered amicus 

briefs26 filed by the U.S. House of Representatives,27 a group of local and tribal governments,28 and an organization dedicated to reducing gun violence.29

On the day of the hearing, Judge Bastian issued a preliminary injunction.30

[T]he fact that fourteen States, members of the United States House of 

Representatives, members of the United States Senate, and various local and 

tribal governments have asked this Court to intervene to prevent the Postal 

Service and others from disenfranchising citizens from participating in federal, state, and local elections suggest that the Postal Service’s actions are 

not the result of any legitimate business concerns. . . . 

In addition, these parties have demonstrated that the recent changes 

implemented by [Postmaster General Louis] DeJoy and the Postal Service 

have the unintended but very serious consequences of interfering with other 

essential government functions such as collecting fees and taxes, sending 

pension payments, and enforcing local ordinances, as well as interfering 

with the provision of critical health care services such as prescription refills, 

[contact] tracing, sexually-transmitted infection testing and opioid overdose prevention.31

The injunction ordered the postal service to discontinue recent changes in 

operation that degraded mail service.32

23. Transcript at 4, Washington v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-3127 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 27, 2020, 

filed Sept. 4, 2020), D.E. 51. 

24. Order, id. (Aug. 27, 2020), D.E. 38, 2020 WL 7220828 (“Plaintiffs indicate they plan 

on filing a preliminary injunction or seek a writ of mandamus shortly.”); Minutes, id. (Aug. 

27, 2020), D.E. 37; Order, id. (Sept. 1, 2020), D.E. 48. 

25. Transcript at 2–3, id. (Sept. 17, 2020, filed Sept. 24, 2020), D.E. 85; Minutes, id. (Sept. 

17, 2020), D.E. 82. 

26. Washington v. Trump, 487 F. Supp. 3d 977, 979 (E.D. Wash. 2020). 

27. Amicus Brief, Washington v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-3127 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 11, 2020), 

D.E. 57. 

28. Amicus Brief, id. (Sept. 16, 2020), D.E. 63, 78. 

29. Amicus Brief, id. (Sept. 11, 2020), D.E. 66. 

30. Washington v. Trump, 487 F. Supp. 3d 977; see Preliminary-Injunction Motion, 

Washington v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-3127 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 9, 2020), D.E. 54; see also Hsu, 

supra note 8; Joseph O’Sullivan, Federal Judge: USPS Must Halt Changes That Slow Mail, 

Seattle Times, Sept. 18, 2020, at A5; Ruling Blocks Postal Changes, L.A. Times, Sept. 18, 2020, 

at A1; Elise Viebeck & Jacob Bogage, Judge Blocks USPS Changes That Could Slow Ballots, 

Wash. Post, Sept. 18, 2020, at A1. 

31. Washington v. Trump, 487 F. Supp. 3d at 983. 

32. Id. at 984–85; see Clarification Order, Washington v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-3127 (E.D. 

Wash. Oct. 2, 2020), D.E. 90, 2020 WL 6588502. 
Allegations of Politically Motivated Degradations of Postal Services 

Federal Judicial Center 11/21/2023 5

Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

Six other states—California, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania—and the District of Columbia filed their own action 

against the postmaster general and the postal service in the Eastern District 

of Pennsylvania on August 21, 2020, alleging “unlawful actions designed to 

undermine the effective operation of the United States Postal Service . . . and 

impede the efforts of the Plaintiff States to conduct free and fair elections in 

the manner Plaintiff States have chosen.”33 The plaintiffs filed a motion for 

expedited discovery one week later,34 and they filed a motion for a preliminary injunction five days after that.35

Finding that “the litigation in other districts does not address all the issues raised by this case,” Judge Gerald Austin McHugh granted expedited 

discovery on September 4.36 On September 11, he set the case for an inperson preliminary-injunction hearing on September 22,37 later rescheduling 

it for September 24.38

Judge McHugh issued a preliminary injunction on September 28, eleven 

days after Judge Bastian’s and three days after Judge Marrero’s, essentially 

adopting Judge Marrero’s decision.39

On September 24, the court had reassigned to Judge McHugh as a related 

case a voter’s August 19 class action seeking an order to count absentee ballots received late because of “mail delivery delays or disruptions.”40 This case 

was resolved by stipulation on November 25.41

District of Columbia 

On the same day that the complaint in New York was filed, four voters filed a 

federal complaint in the district court for the District of Columbia against 

the President, the postmaster general, and the postal service for “making false 

statements about widespread mail-in voter fraud when such fraud is virtually 

33. Complaint at 1, Pennsylvania v. DeJoy, No. 2:20-cv-4096 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2020), 

D.E. 1; see Pennsylvania v. DeJoy, 490 F. Supp. 3d 833, 843–44 (E.D. Pa. 2020).

34. Motion, Pennsylvania v. DeJoy, No. 2:20-cv-4096 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2020), D.E. 14. 

35. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id. (Sept. 2, 2020), D.E. 18. 

36. Order, id. (Sept. 4, 2020), D.E. 22; see Order, id. (Aug. 31, 2020), D.E. 16 (granting 

expedited consideration of the discovery motion); Motion, id. (Aug. 28, 2020), D.E. 15 (unopposed motion for expedited consideration of the motion for expedited discovery). 

37. Order, id. (Sept. 11, 2020), D.E. 35; see Motion, id. (Sept. 2, 2020), D.E. 19 (unopposed motion for expedited consideration of the preliminary-injunction motion). 

38. Order, id. (Sept. 21, 2020), D.E. 57; see Transcript, id. (Sept. 24, 2020, filed Sept. 30, 

2020), D.E. 64. 

39. Pennsylvania v. DeJoy, 490 F. Supp. 3d 833, 893 (E.D. Pa. 2020); Order, Pennsylvania 

v. DeJoy, No. 2:20-cv-4096 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2020), D.E. 63; see Order, id. (Oct. 9, 2020), 

D.E. 70, 2020 WL 6580463 (clarifying the injunction); see also Erin Cox, Pa. Federal Judge 

Joins Chorus of Courts Barring USPS from Delivery Cuts, Wash. Post, Sept. 29, 2020, at A18; 

Ellie Rushing, Postal Changes Blocked, Phila. Inquirer, Sept. 29, 2020, at B1. 

40. Reassignment Notice, Johnakin v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 2:20-cv-4055 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 

24, 2020), D.E. 13; Complaint at 9, id. (Aug. 19, 2020), D.E. 1; see Preliminary-Injunction 

Motion, id. (Sept. 18, 2020), D.E. 5. 

41. Order, id. (Nov. 25, 2020), D.E. 21; Stipulation, id. (Nov. 25, 2020), D.E. 20. 
Allegations of Politically Motivated Degradations of Postal Services 

6 Federal Judicial Center 11/21/2023 

non-existent (Trump) and by significantly slowing down mail delivery of flat 

mail like absentee and mail-in ballots (Trump and DeJoy).”42

On the following day, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued an order to show 

cause why the plaintiffs should not be held in contempt for redacting their 

addresses from the complaint and for seeking preliminary injunctive relief in 

the complaint without also seeking such relief by separate motion.43 Two 

days later, the plaintiffs filed an application for a preliminary injunction.44 In 

response to the show-cause order, the plaintiffs stated that they wished to 

withhold from public disclosure “information that could cause Plaintiffs to 

suffer physical harm or harassment.”45 On August 27, 2020, the case’s eleventh day, Judge Sullivan granted the plaintiffs limited redaction privileges.46

Also on that day, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery.47

On September 1, Judge Sullivan directed the parties to show cause why 

the case should not be consolidated as related to three other cases pending in 

the district court.48

The first of the other cases was filed on August 20 by the NAACP against 

the postal service and the postmaster general.49 The complaint alleged that 

“the Postal Service made clear that ballots sent by marketing mail would not 

be accorded first-class mail treatment, and thus take longer to deliver, even 

though the Postal Service had previously trained its employees to give firstclass treatment to ballots and other election-related materials sent as marketing mail.”50 The NAACP filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on September 1.51

The second other case was filed by three states—Hawaii, New Jersey, and 

New York—and two cities—New York and San Francisco—on August 25 

against the President, the postmaster general, and the postal service.52 “[The 

plaintiffs] all have plans to provide voters with safe alternatives to in-person 

voting in the middle of the country’s unprecedented public health crisis. 

42. Complaint at 2, Richardson v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-2262 (D.D.C. Aug. 17, 2020, refiled Aug. 18, 2020), D.E. 4-1; Richardson v. Trump, 496 F. Supp. 3d 165, 171, 176 (D.D.C. 

2020). 

43. Docket Sheet, Richardson, No. 1:20-cv-2262 (D.D.C. Aug. 17, 2020) [hereinafter

Richardson Docket Sheet]. 

44. Preliminary-Injunction Application, id. (Aug. 20, 2020), D.E. 14. 

45. Motion at 2, id. (Aug. 20, 2020), D.E. 8. 

46. Richardson Docket Sheet, supra note 43. 

47. Motion, Richardson, No. 1:20-cv-2262 (D.D.C. Aug. 27, 2020), D.E. 26. 

48. Richardson Docket Sheet, supra note 43. 

49. Complaint, NAACP v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 1:20-cv-2295 (D.D.C. Aug. 20, 2020), 

D.E. 1. 

50. Id. at 3. 

51. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id. (Sept. 1, 2020), D.E. 8. 

52. Complaint, New York v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-2340 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2020), D.E. 1 

[hereinafter New York v. Trump Complaint]; New York v. Biden, 636 F. Supp. 3d 1, 11 

(D.D.C. 2022); New York v. Trump, 490 F. Supp. 3d 225, 231, 235 (D.D.C. 2020); see Deanna 

Paul, Lawsuit Is Filed to Stop Postal-Service Changes, Wall St. J., Aug. 26, 2020, at A8A. 
Allegations of Politically Motivated Degradations of Postal Services 

Federal Judicial Center 11/21/2023 7

[Mail d]elays disrupt those plans, forcing voters to risk either disenfranchisement by voting by mail or their health by voting in person.”53

Four organizations and a voter filed the third other case on August 28 

against the postmaster general and the postal service.54

The defendants55 and the plaintiffs in the voter case56 and the states-andcities case57 agreed that the four cases could be consolidated, but the 

NAACP58 and the organizations-and-voter plaintiffs59 stated that their preliminary-injunction motions should be resolved without consolidation. 

The plaintiffs in the states-and-cities case filed a preliminary-injunction 

motion on September 2.60 On September 27, Judge Sullivan issued a preliminary injunction against the postal service’s summer policy changes.61

On September 8, the organizations-and-voter plaintiffs filed an amended 

complaint—with ten additional voters as plaintiffs62—and a motion for a preliminary injunction.63 Six days later, they filed a motion for expedited discovery.64 On September 28, Judge Sullivan granted them a preliminary injunction against changes made to rules governing late and extra trips by mail carriers.65

The plaintiffs in the voter case filed an amended complaint on September 

11.66 Judge Sullivan issued a preliminary injunction on October 8 against 

changes made to rules governing late and extra trips by mail carriers and re53. New York v. Trump Complaint, supra note 52, at 3–4. 

54. Complaint, Vote Forward v. DeJoy, No. 1:20-cv-2405 (D.D.C. Aug. 28, 2020), D.E. 1; 

Vote Forward v. DeJoy, 540 F. Supp. 3d 15, 21 (D.D.C. 2021); Vote Forward v. DeJoy, 490 F. 

Supp. 3d 110, 117 (D.D.C. 2020). 

55. Response, New York v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-2340 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2020), D.E. 17; Response, NAACP, No. 1:20-cv-2295 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2020), D.E. 13; Response, Richardson v. 

Trump, No. 1:20-cv-2262 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2020), D.E. 42. 

56. Response, Richardson, No. 1:20-cv-2262 (D.D.C. Sept. 2, 2020), D.E. 39. 

57. Response, New York v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-2340 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2020), D.E. 15. 

58. Response, NAACP, No. 1:20-cv-2295 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2020), D.E. 11. 

59. Response, Vote Forward, No. 1:20-cv-2405 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2020), D.E. 11. 

60. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, New York v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-2340 (D.D.C. Sept. 

2, 2020), D.E. 12; New York v. Biden, 636 F. Supp. 3d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2022); New York v. 

Trump, 490 F. Supp. 3d 225, 235 (D.D.C. 2020). 

61. New York v. Trump, 490 F. Supp. 3d 225; Order, New York v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv2340 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2020), D.E. 51; New York v. Biden, 636 F. Supp. 3d at 11; see Opinion, 

New York v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-2340 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2021), D.E. 98, 2021 WL 7908124 

(clarification order); Opinion, id. (Apr. 3, 2021), D.E. 88, 2021 WL 7908123 (same); Opinion, id. (Oct. 22, 2020), D.E. 62, 2020 WL 6572675 (same); see also Hsu, supra note 8. 

62. Amended Complaint, Vote Forward, No. 1:20-cv-2405 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2020), D.E. 

15; Vote Forward v. DeJoy, 490 F. Supp. 3d 110, 117 (D.D.C. 2020). 

63. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Vote Forward, No. 1:20-cv-2405 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 

2020), D.E. 16; Vote Forward v. DeJoy, 540 F. Supp. 3d 15, 18 (D.D.C. 2021); Vote Forward, 

490 F. Supp. 3d at 117. 

64. Motion, Vote Forward, No. 1:20-cv-2405 (D.D.C. Sept. 14, 2020), D.E. 20. 

65. Vote Forward, 490 F. Supp. 3d 110; Order, Vote Forward, No. 1:20-cv-2405 (D.D.C. 

Sept. 28, 2020), D.E. 31; Vote Forward, 540 F. Supp. 3d at 18, 21. 

66. Amended Complaint, Richardson v. Trump, No. 1:02-cv-2262 (D.D.C. Sept. 11, 

2020), D.E. 49. 
Allegations of Politically Motivated Degradations of Postal Services 

8 Federal Judicial Center 11/21/2023 

quiring “all overtime necessary to ensure the timely delivery of Election 

Mail.”67

In the NAACP case, Judge Sullivan issued a preliminary injunction on 

October 10 against recent changes in transportation policies.68

To supervise the injunctions and the cases, Judge Sullivan conducted additional proceedings each day from Tuesday, October 27, through Friday, 

November 6, including weekend days, and on Monday, November 9, in three 

cases: the voter case, the NAACP case, and the organizations-and-voter 

case.69 

Judge Russell 

On October 29, Judge Russell denied the organizational defendants in his 

Maryland case a preliminary injunction: 

In light of the evidence proffered by Defendants, and in the absence of any 

clear explanation from Plaintiffs regarding why the current injunctions imposed on Defendants are insufficient to address the harm caused by decommissioned sorting machines, the Court cannot conclude that it is “indisputably clear” that the absence of additional sorting machines is likely to 

cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs. 

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiffs truly view any remaining deficiencies in [the postal service’s] ability or intent to timely deliver Election Mail 

as perils to our democracy, they have litigated this case in a manner inconsistent with that concern. Unlike the plaintiffs in every one of the Related 

Actions, Plaintiffs here waited over five weeks from the time they filed their 

Complaint to file their Motion for Preliminary Injunction.70

The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their action on December 15.71

The New President’s Administration 

In early 2021, most of the remaining lawsuits were dismissed as settled by the 

new President’s administration.72

67. Richardson v. Trump, 496 F. Supp. 3d 165 (D.D.C. 2020); Order, Richardson, No. 

1:02-cv-2262 (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2020), D.E. 64. 

68. NAACP v. U.S. Postal Serv., 496 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2020); Order, NAACP v. U.S. 

Postal Serv., No. 1:20-cv-2295 (D.D.C. Oct. 10, 2020), D.E. 31. 

69. Transcripts, Vote Forward, No. 1:20-2405 (D.D.C. Oct. 28 to Nov. 6 and Nov. 9, 2020, 

filed Oct. 29 and Dec. 1, 2020), D.E. 44, 130 to 140; Transcript, Richardson, No. 1:20-cv-2262 

(D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2020, filed Dec. 17, 2020), D.E. 165; Docket Sheet, Vote Forward, No. 1:20-

cv-2405 (D.D.C. Aug. 28, 2020); Docket Sheet, NAACP, No. 1:10-cv-2295 (Aug. 20, 2020); 

Richardson Docket Sheet, supra note 43; see Luke Broadwater & Hailey Fuchs, Mail Votes: 

Postal Service Finishes Court-Ordered Search, N.Y. Times, Nov. 5, 2020, at P10; Rebecca 

Smith, Byron Tau & Rob Barry, Judge Orders USPS to Search for Ballots, Wall St. J., Nov. 6, 

2020, at A4; Byron Tau, Judge’s USPS Order Isn’t Met in Time, Wall St. J., Nov. 4, 2020, at 

A6. 

70. Opinion at 23–24, Nat’l Urban League v. DeJoy, No. 1:20-cv-2391 (D. Md. Oct. 29, 

2020), D.E. 76, 2020 WL 6363959. 

71. Notice, id. (Dec. 15, 2020), D.E. 83. 

72. Stipulated Dismissal, Pennsylvania v. DeJoy, No. 2:20-cv-4096 (E.D. Pa. May 17, 

2022), D.E. 192; Stipulated Dismissal, Jones v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 1:20-cv-6516 (S.D.N.Y. 

May 13, 2021), D.E. 124; Order, Washington v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-3127 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 
Allegations of Politically Motivated Degradations of Postal Services 

Federal Judicial Center 11/21/2023 9

On May 18, Judge Sullivan denied the organizations-and-voter plaintiffs 

a new preliminary injunction in light of postal service improvements,73 and 

the case was voluntarily dismissed six days later.74 In the NAACP case, Judge 

Sullivan clarified the injunction on August 23,75 and the parties stipulated 

settlement on December 17.76

Resolving summary-judgment motions in the states-and-cities case, 

Judge Sullivan decided on September 30, 2022, that the postal service wrongfully implemented policy changes without first seeking an advisory opinion 

from its postal regulatory commission, but that other claims by the plaintiffs 

of ultra vires actions were without merit.77 Judge Sullivan agreed to delay final judgment to allow for settlement talks.78

17, 2021), D.E. 131; Order, NAACP v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 20-5375 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 10, 

2021), 2021 WL 672392 (appeal in the District of Columbia NAACP case); Order, Vote Forward v. DeJoy, No. 20-5353 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 10, 2021), 2021 WL 672395 (appeal in the District of Columbia organizations-and-voters case); Order, Richardson v. Biden, No. 20-5367 

(D.C. Cir. Feb. 8, 2021), 2021 WL 672397 (appeal in the District of Columbia voter case); 

Order, Washington v. Trump, No. 20-36047 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2021), D.E. 15 (appeal in the 

Washington case); Voluntary Dismissal, Richardson, No. 1:20-cv-2262 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 

2021), D.E. 174; Order, Pennsylvania v. U.S. Postmaster Gen., No. 20-3419 (3d Cir. Jan. 20, 

2021), D.E. 16 (appeal in the Pennsylvania case); see Stipulated Order, Jones, No. 1:20-cv6516 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2022), D.E. 152 (approving a payment of $79,900 for attorney fees 

and expenses). 

73. Vote Forward v. DeJoy, 540 F. Supp. 3d 15 (D.D.C. 2021); see Second Amended 

Complaint, Vote Forward, No. 1:20-cv-2405 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2021), D.E. 173. 

74. Voluntary Dismissal, Vote Forward, No. 1:20-cv-2405 (D.D.C. May 24, 2021), D.E. 

184. 

75. Opinion, NAACP v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 1:20-cv-2295 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2021), D.E. 

163; see Amended Complaint, id. (Mar. 5, 2021), D.E. 149. 

76. Stipulation, id. (Dec. 17, 2021), D.E. 170. 

77. New York v. Biden, 636 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2022); Order, New York v. Biden, No. 

1:20-cv-2340 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2022), D.E. 106; see Order, id. (Mar. 6, 2023), D.E. 114, 2023 

WL 3311788 (clarifying the injunction). 

78. Docket Sheet, New York v. Biden, No. 1:20-cv-2340 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2020) (minute 

order, Nov. 8, 2023); see Status Report, id. (Sept. 29, 2023), D.E. 123; Order, New York v. 

Biden, No. 23-5103 (June 8, 2023) (holding a precautionary appeal in abeyance).