Washington v. Trump

487 F.Supp.3d 976

State of WASHINGTON, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Illinois State of Maryland, State of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, Commonwealth of Virginia, and State of Wisconsin, Plaintiffs,

v.Donald J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America; United States of America; Louis DeJoy, in his official capacity as Postmaster General ; United States Postal Service, Defendants.

No. 1:20-CV-03127-SAB

United States District Court, E.D. Washington.

Signed September 17, 2020

Andrew Wenderoff Hughes, Kristin Beneski, Nathan Bays, Washington State Attorney General, Seattle, WA, Cristina Sepe, Karl D. Smith, Emma Grunberg, Noah G. Purcell, Washington State Office of the Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff State of Washington.

Eric R. Olson, Pro Hac Vice, Office of the Attorney General, Denver, CO, Kristin Beneski, Attorney Generals Office, Seattle, WA, Noah G. Purcell, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff State of Colorado.

Joshua Perry, Pro Hac Vice, Office of the Attorney General, Hartford, CT, Kristin Beneski, Attorney Generals Office, Seattle, WA, Noah G. Purcell, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff State of Connecticut.

Christopher G. Wells, Pro Hac Vice, Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL, Kristin Beneski, Attorney Generals Office, Seattle, WA, Noah G. Purcell, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff State of Illinois.

Jeffrey Paul Dunlap, Pro Hac Vice, Office of the Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, Kristin Beneski, Attorney Generals Office, Seattle, WA, Noah G. Purcell, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff State of Maryland.

Christina Grossi, Pro Hac Vice, Michigan Department of Attorney General, Lansing, MI, Kristin Beneski, Attorney Generals Office, Seattle, WA, Noah G. Purcell, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff State of Michigan.

Angela Behrens, Pro Hac Vice, Office of the Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, Kristin Beneski, Attorney Generals Office, Seattle, WA, Noah G. Purcell, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff State of Minnesota.

Heidi Parry Stern, Pro Hac Vice, Office of the Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, Kristin Beneski, Attorney Generals Office, Seattle, WA, Noah G. Purcell, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff State of Nevada.

Nicholas M. Sydow, Pro Hac Vice, Office of the Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, Kristin Beneski, Attorney Generals Office, Seattle, WA, Noah G. Purcell, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff State of New Mexico.

James S. Smith, Oregon State Department of Justice Civil Recovery Section, Salem, OR, Noah G. Purcell, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff State of Oregon.

Keith Hoffmann, Pro Hac Vice, Office of the Attorney General, Providence, RI, Kristin Beneski, Attorney Generals Office, Seattle, WA, Noah G. Purcell, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff State of Rhode Island.

Eleanor Spottswood, Pro Hac Vice, Office of Attorney General, Montpelier, VT, Kristin Beneski, Attorney Generals Office, Seattle, WA, Noah G. Purcell, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff State of Vermont.

Carol L. Lewis, Pro Hac Vice, Michelle S. Kallen, Pro Hac Vice, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, VA, Kristin Beneski, Attorney Generals Office, Seattle, WA, Noah G. Purcell, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Virginia.

Colin Roth, Pro Hac Vice, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, WI, Kristin Beneski, Attorney Generals Office, Seattle, WA, Noah G. Purcell, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff State of Wisconsin.

Alexis Echols, Joseph Borson, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Stanley A. Bastian, Chief United States District Judge Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 54. A hearing on the motion was held on September 17, 2020. Plaintiffs were represented by Kristen Beneski and Noah Purcell; Defendants were represented by Joseph Borson, who appeared by videoconference. The following attorneys also participated by telephone: Andrew Hughes (Washington); Cristina Sepe (Washington); Karl Smith (Washington); Emma Grunberg (Washington); Tera Heintz (Washington); Nathan Bays (Washington); Daniel DeCecco (Colorado); Danny Rheiner (Colorodo); Joshua Perry (Connecticut); Jeffrey Dunlap (Maryland); Angela Behrens (Minnesota); Nicholas Sydow (New Mexico); Elleanor Chin (Oregon); Carol Lewis (Virginia); and Colin Roth (Wisconsin). The Court also considered the briefs of amici curiae. ECF Nos. 57-1; 63-1; 66-1; and 78.

Background Facts

The case is a result of Defendant Postmaster General Louis DeJoy's institution of "transformative" changes that caused "immediate, lasting, and impactful changes" in the operations and culture on the United States Postal Service ("Postal Service"). These changes were set forth in a "Mandatory Stand-up Talk: All Employees, July 10, 2020" document. Bullet points identified specific examples of "transformative" changes that were being implemented immediately:

? All operations must meet our 24-hour clock commitment

? All trips will depart on time (Network, Plant and Delivery); late trips are no longer authorized or accepted

? Extra trips are no longer authorized or accepted

? There must be proper annotation in the scanner, if a Contractor Failure occurs

? All PVS/HCR drives must be notified that trips depart on time

? Function 3 must start on time and end on time and we must make scheduled DUT

? Carriers must begin on time, leave for the street on time, and return on time

? Carriers must make the final dispatch of value; no additional transportation will be authorized to dispatch mail to the Plant after the intended dispatch

? The right mail must go on the right truck – every time

? ALL EMPLOYEES have an essential role with trips departing on time

The document noted that "[o]ne aspect of these changes that may be difficult for employees is that–temporarily–we may see mail left behind or mail on the workroom floor or docks, (in P&DCs), which is not typical."

Other actions taken by DeJoy include: (1) eliminating overtime; (2) decommissioning sorting machines; (3) removing mailboxes; (4) reducing operating hours; and (5) changing how election mail is classified. Plaintiffs assert the Postal Service has indicated that it will no longer treat election mail as First Class mail regardless of the paid class of service and do so could delay the delivery of the ballots by 1-5 days.

Plaintiffs allege these changes were made for political reasons, a few months before a presidential election and in the middle of a global pandemic, with no analysis on how they would affect voters or people relying on delivery of time-critical items. Plaintiffs allege that while the removal of sorting machines is taking place across the county, the removals would particularly affect sorting capacity in states where recent presidential elections have been particularly close. Plaintiffs assert the removal of the sorting machines are diminishing and will continue to diminish the Postal Service's capacity to speedily process flat mail, such as ballots. If the states are required to pay the First Class rate, it will cost them tens of millions of dollars.

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs state that reports have confirmed that delivery has been delayed because of the new policy. "People have reported delay in receiving time-sensitive medications, businesses that rely on the mail have reported delays harming their finances, and state agencies have seen delays in delivery of important documents and benefits." ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs report that in Tennessee, trucks are leaving sorting facilities for cross-country trips completely empty as a result of the new policy not allowing a truck to remain even five minutes so it can be loaded with mail. They allege that postal workers report that the mail is piling up in their offices and that mail is backed up across the country. Plaintiffs assert the effects of the mail delays are widespread, with troubling impacts on vulnerable populations, small business, and political franchise. Medications and prescriptions provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs are taking weeks to be delivered, causing veterans to miss doses of their vital medications. Other Americans rely on the Postal Service for delivery of prescriptions, as well and the delays affect the delivery of their medications.

Plaintiffs assert the changes to the Postal Service operations threaten to disrupt the successful use of mail in balloting. States are reporting increased anxiety on the part of voters who have expressed concern that their mail-in ballots will not be delivered on time or at all. Officials in some states are concerned that voters may choose to vote in-person thereby increasing the risk of COVID-19 transmission at the voting centers.

On August 18, 2020, the day Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, DeJoy announced the suspension of some operational changes to the Postal Service, including the nationwide removal of hundreds of mail processing and sorting machines, the removal of mail collection boxes, and the reduction in post office retail hours. The policy described above, referred to by Plaintiffs as the "Leave Mail Behind" policy, however, still remains in place. Moreover, it appears that the Postal Service will not treat election mail as First Class mail unless First Class postage is paid.

Plaintiffs assert that the delays in delivery and postmarking caused by the "Leave Mail Behind" policy and the Postal Service's decision to no longer treat Election Mail as First Class mail have already disenfranchised voters and will disenfranchise many more in...