Congress exempted the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service from review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Posted by Badlands Media, Checked
- Sources
- 3 support2 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 80%
Badlands MediaSep 16, 2026
The claim matches the statutory text of 39 U.S.C. §410(a), which the primary Supreme Court source (Alito dissent in Postal Service v. California) quotes as exempting "the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service" from review under the APA.
What was said
… Like, it, that needs to be dealt with. Yes. So it says here, it says, to assert a claim that an agency exceeded its statutory authority, the challenger needs a cause of action, which is typically provided by the Administrative Procedure Act. However, Congress broadly exempted quote-unquote "the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service" from review under the APA, explicitly mentioned the Postal Service as being exempt from the exercise of the powers under the APA. The Post Office, this needs to actually be reviewed. It, it can't. What's that? This can't actually be reviewed. Exactly. …
Badlands Media · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. The Alito dissent in Postal Service v. California quotes the statute: Congress "broadly exempted 'the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service' from review under the APA," citing 39 U.S.C. §410(a).[1]
Supports. Currier v. Henderson quotes §410(a) and holds that the PRA specifically exempts the Postal Service from APA judicial review; the D.D.C. opinion in NAPS v. USPS likewise states the Act expressly exempts the Postal Service "from review under the Administrative Procedure Act."[3][4]
Context. Peoples Gas (N.D. Ill.) holds that the §410 exemptions do not foreclose all judicial review of alleged violations of Postal Service procurement regulations, so the exemption's breadth is contested even though its existence is not.[5]
Context. A DOJ brief argues that §410(a) precludes APA review but that the exemption applies only to internal operations listed in its first clause, showing the scope dispute among litigants.[2]
Sources
5 sources: 2 primary, 3 not rated
- 126A305 Postal Service v. California (09/14/2026)supremecourt.gov · primary source · cited for: supports
- 2sg900736.txtjustice.gov · primary source · cited for: context
- 3Currier v. Henderson, 190 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (W.D. Wash. 2002)law.justia.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 4NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 1:2019cv02236 - Document 42 (D.D.C. 2023)supreme.justia.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 5Peoples Gas, Light & Coke Co. v. United States Postal Service – CourtListener.comcourtlistener.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- The Postal Service is exempt from review under the Administrative Procedure Act.True
- Justice Samuel Alito argued that the Administrative Procedure Act does not allow for challenges to certain Postal Service regulations.True
- Statutory claims against the Postal Service must be reviewed first by the Postal Regulatory Commission and then by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.Can’t tell
- The Postal Service issued a rule regarding mail-in ballots while subject to an injunction.True
- The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Postal Service rule was likely a regulation of the manner, time, place, and manner of holding elections, which is assigned to states and Congress, not an executive agency.True