Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://federate.social/users/mattblaze/statuses/117272093302893838">Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Tuesday, 15-Sep-2026 13:48:00 JST</a><a href="https://federate.social/@mattblaze" title="mattblaze@federate.social"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/20679-48-20230314144041.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Matt Blaze" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Matt Blaze</a><div><a href="https://federate.social/@mattblaze/117272050544553927" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a><ul><li></ul></div></section><article><p>Short, unsigned ruling; “unlikely to succeed on merits”. </p><p>Kavanaugh concurred but thinks it could succeed, but is concerned about the late timing for this election. </p><p><a href="https://mastodon.social/@heidilifeldman">@heidilifeldman</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/6691662#notice-13167922">In conversation</a><time datetime="2026-09-15T13:48:00+09:00" title="Tuesday, 15-Sep-2026 13:48:00 JST">about a month ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://federate.social/@mattblaze/117272093302893838" rel="external" title="Sent from federate.social via ActivityPub">federate.social</a></span></span><a href="https://federate.social/@mattblaze/117272093302893838">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/6428809">UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL. v.
CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[September 14, 2026]The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON
and by her referred to the Court is denied. The Government
is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the
District Court’s preliminary injunction. And the equitable
factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this
Court do not favor a stay.JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.
In my view, based on the briefing the Court has received
at this interim stage, there is at least a fair prospect that
the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory
authority. See 39 U. S. C. §401(2). But applying the rule
in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state
and local election officials do not have sufficient time to
reasonably implement the rule before the elections. See 39
U. S. C. §3001(m); 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A). For that reason, I
concur in the denial of the application for stay.</a></label><br><a href="https://cdn.masto.host/federatesocial/media_attachments/files/117/272/093/002/364/878/original/3f0d1c380d007845.jpeg" rel="external">https://cdn.masto.host/federatesocial/media_attachments/files/117/272/093/002/364/878/original/3f0d1c380d007845.jpeg</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Tuesday, 15-Sep-2026 13:48:00 JSTMatt Blaze
in reply to
- Heidi Li Feldman
Short, unsigned ruling; “unlikely to succeed on merits”.
Kavanaugh concurred but thinks it could succeed, but is concerned about the late timing for this election.
@heidilifeldman
In conversationabout a month ago from federate.socialpermalink
Attachments
1. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [September 14, 2026] The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is denied. The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction. And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring. In my view, based on the briefing the Court has received at this interim stage, there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority. See 39 U. S. C. §401(2). But applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections. See 39 U. S. C. §3001(m); 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A). For that reason, I concur in the denial of the application for stay.
  https://cdn.masto.host/federatesocial/media_attachments/files/117/272/093/002/364/878/original/3f0d1c380d007845.jpeg

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice