Amicus Brief Urges Injunction Against EO 14399

The Society for the Rule of Law has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in DSCC v. Trump, urging the Court to impose a permanent injunction against the Executive Order 14399 rule that instructs the United States Postal Service to collect and administer lists of voters who use mail-in and absentee ballots. The amicus brief, consisting of five primary contentions, argues that the USPS rule infringes federal law, the Constitution, and judicial precedent. Additionally, the brief refutes any use of the Purcell doctrine to block this injunction.

Without covering every basis to enjoin the USPS rule directed by Executive Order (“EO”) 14399, this brief focuses on five reasons. Part I shows that the election provisions of the Constitution and federal election statutes preclude the USPS rule. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”), the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), and the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 withhold from the USPS any regulatory role concerning any voter list, imposing a new requirement for the delivery of paper ballots, or restricting absentee ballots. Indeed, in 52 U.S.C. § 21145(a) in HAVA, Congress precluded the USPS from using the Title 39 non-election provisions on which defendants rely to regulate those practices.

Part II shows that non-election provisions of Title 39 also preclude the USPS rule. In particular, defendants concede that Congress has withheld from the USPS any authority to create a new category of unmailable items. The text of 39 U.S.C. §§ 3001-18 shows that a rule like the USPS’s new mail-in rule that prohibits delivery of a category except for those items that satisfy USPS regulations is a classic nonmailability rule. Indeed, the nonmailability statutory sections use that approach nine times for categories from fragrance advertising samples to hazardous materials. But never for election mail. And that is what the USPS rule illegally does.

Part III discusses how constitutional and statutory design, structure, and history further support that Congress has withheld authority from the USPS to override, displace, or modify state election practices here in the areas of voter lists, delivery requirements for paper ballots, and restricting absentee balloting.

Part IV shows that an additional reason why the USPS rule is unauthorized is that the federalism presumption and the major question doctrine would require a clear statement or clear authorization. Those are sorely lacking in Title 39’s non-election provisions.

Part V shows that if defendants raise the argument that the Purcell doctrine immunizes the application of the USPS rule to the 2026 elections, the Court should reject that argument, as the D.C. Circuit did.

Read the full brief here. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].