UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE,
Plaintiff, No. 20-cv-2295(EGS) v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s (“NAACP”)
Motion to Enforce Compliance with the Settlement Agreement and
Court Order (“Mot.”), ECF No. 171. 1 Upon careful consideration of
NAACP’s motion, the opposition, the reply, the applicable law,
and for the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS NAACP’s
motion.
I. Background
A. Settlement Agreement
NAACP filed this lawsuit on August 20, 2020 against
Defendants the United States Postal Service and the then-
1 When citing electronic filings throughout this Opinion, the Court cites to the ECF header page number, not the page number of the filed document. 1 Postmaster General of the United States 2 in his official capacity
(collectively “USPS” or “Postal Service”) challenging various
changes the Postal Service made with respect to the delivery of
Election Mail shortly before the 2020 national election and in
the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Because the changes the
Postal Service implemented lead to significant and nationwide
mail delays, NAACP sued “to require the Postal Service to
suspend these changes, to restore prompt and reliable mail
delivery, and to ensure that mail-in ballots are accorded
priority status, as they have been in past years.” Compl., ECF
No. 1 ¶ 5. On October 10, 2020, the Court granted NAACP’s Motion
for Preliminary Injunction, ruling that NAACP was likely to
succeed on the merits of its claim that the Postal Service made
the changes without following the procedures required by law.
See Mem. Op., ECF No. 32 at 29-34.
In December 2021, the parties entered into a Settlement
Agreement (“Agreement”) regarding the Postal Service’s practices
for Election Mail, including those regarding mail-in ballots.
See Stipulation of Settlement & Proposed Order (“Stipulation”),
ECF No 170. The Court “retained jurisdiction to enforce
paragraphs 2, 4, and 5 of the Settlement Agreement, subject to
2 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the current Postmaster General David Steiner is substituted as Defendant for the former Postmaster General Louis DeJoy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 2 the relevant limitations set out in paragraphs 4.b, 5.b, 6.b,
and 10.” See id. ¶ 2; Minute Order (Dec. 20, 2021).
The parties stipulated that the Postal Service agreed “to
prioritize monitoring and timely delivery of election mail.”
Stipulation, ECF No. 170 at 1. The Agreement requires the Postal
Service to issue “National Guidance documents” for every
national election cycle through 2028 that “reflect the Postal
Service’s formal nationwide Election Mail practices and policies
for prioritizing the monitoring and timely delivery of Election
Mail.” Agreement, ECF No. 170 ¶¶ 1-2. Also under the Agreement,
the Postal Service “retains discretion over the . . .
substantive contents of” the National Guidance Documents, id. ¶
2; but those documents “will reflect the Postal Service’s good
faith efforts to prioritize monitoring and timely delivery of
Election Mail” consistent applicable statutory requirements,
regulations, and Postal Regulatory Commission orders, id. ¶ 3(b).
B. Executive Order 14399 and the Postal Service’s Proposed Rule
On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued an Executive
Order (“EO”) designed to exert federal control over who in the
United States may be sent a mail-in or absentee ballot in
federal elections by the Postal Service. See Exec. Order No.
14399, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in
Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 17125 (Mar. 31, 2026). Among
3 other things, the EO directed the Postal Service to initiate a
rulemaking on mail-in and absentee ballots and directed that the
proposed rulemaking include certain provisions set forth in the
EO. Id. at 17126. 3 The EO directed that any final rule be issued
no later than 120 days from the date of the order or August 3,
2026. Id. at 17127.
Pursuant to the EO, the Postal Service issued a Proposed
Rule on June 2, 2026 that tracks the directives of the EO. See
Ballot Mail for Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 32915 (proposed
June 2, 2026) (to be codified at 39 C.F.R. pt. 111) (“Proposed
Rule”). Among the changes proposed are new envelope design and
review standards—specifically “the use of the official Election
Mail logo, automation compatibility, placement of a uniquely
serialized Intelligent Mail barcode (IMb) on each outbound and
return ballot envelope, and a mailpiece design review.” Id. at
32916. States would be required to “notify the Postal Service of
the individuals to whom they will be mailing a mail-in or
absentee ballot, along with the unique barcode applied to the
3 On June 24, 2026, the provision in the EO directing the Postal Service to initiate the rulemaking was declared "legally void" as ultra vires and an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, among other things. See California v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-11581-IT, 2026 WL 1826490, at *16 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026). Accordingly, that Court enjoined the Defendants in the case—other than the President—from implementing the provision as to the November 3, 2026 or any earlier federal election in the Plaintiff states. See id.
4 outbound and return ballot mail envelope for [the] individual”
to enable the Postal Service to create a “Mail-In and Absentee
Participation List” for each state—the “State-Specific Mail-In
and Absentee Participation List” or “State-Specific
Participation Lists” which the Postal Service would then
“provide to each state’s chef election official.” Id. States
would be able to “add to or modify the list of enrollees until
the last day that ballots may be mailed out to individuals under
state law.” Id. The Postal Service would only mail ballots to
individuals who are on the State-Specific Participation Lists.
Id. This would be accomplished through a Postal Service
verification procedure: the Postal Service would only accept
ballots for mailing to voters if the Postal Service “confirm[s]
that a state submitted a list consistent with the conditions
laid out in the proposed rule, and that the outbound ballot
mail, and thus the blank ballot that could be returned by mail,
is destined to individuals on the list, by checking the
barcodes.” Id. Mailings that do not comply with the standards
would be returned to the ballot mailer, who can address the
error and then resubmit. Id. at 32918.
Under the Proposed Rule, “states would retain full control
over who would (or would not) be able to vote by mail in federal
elections in each state” and states would provide this
information to the Postal Service “via the Federal Ballot Mail
5 Portal.” Id. at 32916. Users of the portal would be required to
“certify to the Postal Service that any mail-in or absentee
ballots their state’s authorized ballot mailers provide to the
Postal Service for mailing meet the standards.” Id. at 32918. If
a state does not make this certification, mailings from that
state would not be accepted and will be returned. Id. The
Proposed Rule does not apply to federal primary elections or
voting under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting
Act. Id.
The only way for an individual to be enrolled in the Postal
Service’s Mail-In and Absentee Participation List is to be
included on the list provided to the Postal Service through
these processes. Id. at 32916–18. The Postal Service would then
use the information to verify outbound federal ballot mail—that
is, ballots sent from election officials to voters—before
accepting them for mailing. Id. at 32918. Specifically, the
Postal Service would review whether the mailing complies with
new envelope standards and whether it matches the state-
submitted Mail-In and Absentee Participation List and associated
barcodes. Id. Noncompliant mailings would not be accepted and
transmitted; instead, they would be returned to state or local
election officials or vendors for correction before
resubmission. Id. If a state declines to certify a Mail-In and
Absentee Participation List, the Postal Service would not
6 transmit any outbound federal ballot mail to that state’s
voters.
II. Analysis
A. The Proposed Rule Would Violate Paragraph 2 of the Settlement Agreement
NAACP argues that the Proposed Rule would violate Paragraph
2 of the Agreement because the Postal Service “would refuse to
transmit mail-in ballots in states that did not use specific
envelopes with specific codes, and would refuse to deliver
ballots for voters not included on a state-specific Mail-In and
Absentee Participation List.” Mot., ECF No. 171 at 9 (citing
Proposed Rule, 91 Fed. Reg. at 32918). Furthermore, the Postal
Service would “not deliver[] Election Mail altogether for states
that do not use USPS’s preferred envelopes and barcodes.” Id.
(citing Proposed Rule, 91 Fed. Reg. at 32918). NAACP argues that
“there is a grave risk that USPS will fail to timely deliver
Election Mail for voters who, through no fault of their own, may
not be on the USPS’s new Mail-In and Absentee Participation
Lists because their state has not certified its List” Id. at 9-
10 (citing Proposed Rule, 91 Fed. Reg. at 32918). NAACP also
points out that the List will contain inaccuracies, resulting in
voters failing to receive Election Mail. Id. at 10 (citing Ex.
B, Prelim. Inj. Hr’g Tr. at 78:1–2, DSCC v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-
7 1114-CJN (D.D.C. May 14, 2026) (government defendants conceding
that no list is “perfect”)).
The Postal Service responds that Paragraph 2 is merely “an
informational obligation for USPS to publicly post practices and
policies” and that the Court’s ability to enforce Paragraph 2 is
“limited to requiring USPS to continue to post on its website
the handbooks, regulations, and/or memoranda pertaining to
Election Mail”. Opp’n, ECF No. 175 at 12. 4 The Postal Service
also argues that the Paragraph 2 provision stating that “[t]he
Postal Service retains discretion over the specific manner and
method of posting, as well as the substantive contents of any
such documents posted, as further clarified in paragraphs 3 and
10 of this Agreement” supports its position. Id. Finally, the
Postal Service argues that the Paragraph 6(b) provision stating
that “[t]he Stipulation will specify that nothing in this
Agreement requires the Postal Service to undertake any specific
4 The Court does not address the Postal Service’s argument that NAACP is trying to enforce Paragraph 3 of the Agreement, see Opp’n, ECF No. 175 at 13-14; since NAACP seeks to enforce Paragraph 2, see Reply, ECF No. 177 at 8-9. The Court also does not address the Postal Service’s arguments about the benefits of the Proposed Rule’s envelopes and barcodes, see Opp’n, ECF No. 175 at 15-16; since they are not being challenged in the motion. And the Court agrees with NAACP that the Postal Service’s assurance that it will continue to use Extraordinary Measures for “completed ballots,” id. at 16; does not address the issue since the Proposed Rule would allow the Postal Service to reject non-compliant ballots and so they would not be mailed in the first place. 8 measure to prioritize monitoring and timely delivery of Election
Mail, or any specific measure with respect to the treatment of
Election Mail” similarly supports its position. Id. at 14.
The Postal Service’s arguments are without merit. First,
Paragraph 2 is not merely “an informational obligation.” Rather,
Paragraph 2 requires that “the Postal Service will post publicly
on its website copies of officially issued National Guidance
Documents related to Election Mail.” Agreement, ECF No. 170 ¶ 2.
The Agreement defines National Guidance Documents as “official
materials issued by Postal Service Headquarters that will
reflect the Postal Service’s formal nationwide Election Mail
practices and policies for prioritizing the monitoring and
timely delivery of Election Mail for the national election cycle
taking place every two years.” 5 Id. ¶ 1. The Postal Service
acknowledges that under the Proposed Rule, if a voter is not
enrolled on the “State-Specific Mail-In and Absentee
Participation List,” the voter will “not receive . . . mail-in
or absentee ballots.” Opp’n, ECF No. 175 at 21. That is because
the Postal Service would refuse to accept “noncompliant
mailings”—that is, mailings where the individual does not appear
5 The Agreement defines Election Mail as “any item mailed to or from authorized election officials that enables citizens to participate in the voting process—including ballots, voter registration cards, absentee voting applications, and polling place notifications.” Agreement, ECF No. 170 ¶ 1. 9 on the Mail-In and Absentee Participation List. Opp’n, ECF No.
175 at 10. The Proposed Rule provides that where a state
declines or fails to certify a list the Postal Service requests,
it “will not transmit any outbound federal ballot mail to that
state’s voters.” Proposed Rule, 91 Fed. Reg. at 32918. The
Proposed Rule violates paragraph 2 of the Agreement because the
Postal Service cannot post documents reflecting “practices and
policies for prioritizing the monitoring and timely delivery of
Election Mail” if its policies provide that it will not accept
“noncompliant mailings” and therefore will not deliver mail-in
or absentee ballots to some voters, and if it will not mail
ballots to any voters in a state where the state “declines or
fails to certify a list.”
Second, the Paragraph 2 provision stating that “[t]he
Postal Service retains discretion over the specific manner and
method of posting, as well as the substantive contents of any
such documents posted, as further clarified in paragraphs 3 and
10 of this Agreement” does not give the Postal Service
discretion to disseminate “substantive contents” that are
inconsistent with the Agreement as a whole. “The cases are
legion establishing that where a contract affords discretion to
the government, ‘exercise of that discretion must be fair and
reasonable. . . .’” Hous. Auth. of Slidell v. United States, 149
Fed. Cl. 614, 637 (Fed. Cl. 2020) (quoting Everett Plywood Corp.
10 v. United States, 512 F.2d 1082, 1090 (Ct. Cl. 1975)).
Accordingly, the “substantive contents” of the postings must be
consistent with its “practices and policies for prioritizing the
monitoring and timely delivery of Election Mail.”
Third, the Paragraph 6(b) provision stating that “[t]he
Stipulation will specify that nothing in this Agreement requires
the Postal Service to undertake any specific measure to
prioritize monitoring and timely delivery of Election Mail, or
any specific measure with respect to the treatment of Election
Mail” does not allow the Postal Service to put in place a policy
of refusing to accept and deliver certain ballots.
For all these reasons, the Court concludes that the
Proposed Rule would violate Paragraph 2 of the Settlement
Agreement.
B. NAACP’s Motion is Ripe
The Postal Service advances several arguments in support of
its position that NAACP’s challenge to the Proposed Rule is not
ripe. For the reasons explained below, the Postal Service’s
arguments are without merit.
The Postal Service argues that NAACP’s challenge to the
Proposed Rule is not ripe because the Proposed Rule is without
legal effect, citing cases that stand for the undisputed
proposition that proposed rules are not final agency action
subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure
11 Act (“APA”). See Opp’n, ECF No. 175 at 15-16. But NAACP is not
seeking judicial review of agency action under the APA; it is
seeking to enforce Paragraph 2 of the Agreement and asks the
Court to declare that the standards and procedures set forth in
the Postal Service’s Proposed Rule would violate the Agreement
and to enjoin the Postal Service from implementing those
standards and procedures. See Proposed Order, ECF No. 171-7 at
1.
The Postal Service argues that the issue before the Court
is not ripe because the Court’s “intervention at this time would
merely result in an advisory opinion as to whether the Proposed
Rule is in keeping with the Agreement in violation of Article
III’s requirement that federal courts resolve only “‘cases’” and
“‘controversies.’” Opp’n, ECF No. 175 at 15 (quoting U.S. Const.
art. III, § 2). But the Postal Service has not argued that NAACP
lacks standing to bring its motion. See generally Opp’n, ECF No.
175.
Prudential ripeness “is best seen in a twofold aspect,
requiring [the Court] to evaluate both the fitness of the issues
for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of
withholding court consideration.” Abbott Lab’ys v. Gardner, 387
U.S. 136, 149 (1967). But see Susan B. Anthony List v. Dreihaus,
573 U.S. 149, 167 (2014) (questioning the “continuing vitality
of the prudential ripeness doctrine,” which appears to be in
12 “tension with . . . the principle that a federal court's
obligation to hear and decide cases within its jurisdiction is
virtually unflagging” (citation modified)). The Court concludes
that both factors weigh in favor of considering the merits of
NAACP’s motion.
As to fitness, the motion and opposition present legal
questions involving the interpretation of the Agreement and
whether the Proposed Rule would violate it. See, e.g., Sweeney
v. USPS, 159 F.3d 1342, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“Interpretation
of a settlement agreement is a question of law . . . .”). That
the Proposed Rule is not final does not affect the Court’s
interpretation of the Agreement. Rather, the declaratory relief
NAACP seeks from the Court is appropriate in this situation. See
IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc. v. United States, 160 Fed. Cl. 57, 70
(Fed. Cl. 2022) (noting that “[t]he archetypal situation calling
for declaratory relief is a dispute over contract
interpretation”) (citation omitted)).
As to hardship, NAACP has plausibly suggested—and the
Postal Service has not disputed—that the Proposed Rule is
already having a “real impact on present day affairs.” Volvo N.
Am. Corp. v. Men’s Int’l Pro. Tennis Council, 857 F.2d 55, 64
(2d Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). Among other things, the
Postal Service issued its 2026-2027 Official Election Mail Guide
in February 2026, see Reply, ECF No. 177 at 16; and the changes
13 mandated in the Proposed Rule are “already causing confusion and
apprehension,” id. (citing evidence in California v. Trump, No.
1:26-cv-11581-IT (D. Mass. Apr. 23, 2026), Dkt. No. 105 where
stakeholders have attested to the harm to their interests being
caused by the Proposed Rule).
The Postal Service points to NAACP v. Trump to explain that
NAACP’s “ripeness problem” is based on a series of
contingencies: “any final rule that may (or may not) be
implemented has yet to be issued (if at all), and the guidance
documents that would have to be revised to reflect that rule (if
it is issued) need not be promulgated for nearly four months.”
Opp’n, ECF No. 175 at 15-16 (citing NAACP v. Trump, No. 26-CV-
01114 (CJN), 2026 WL 1487833 at *10 (D.D.C. May 28, 2026)). But
the Postal Service has not explained—nor provided authority for—
why the Court cannot declare that the standards and procedures
set forth in the Proposed Rule would violate the Agreement and
enjoin the Postal Service from implementing the standards and
procedures. As explained above, declaratory relief is
appropriate in this situation. See IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc.,
160 Fed. Cl. at 70.
For all these reasons, NAACP’s challenge to the Proposed
Rule is ripe.
14 C. NAACP Satisfied the Meet and Confer Requirement in Paragraph 10 of the Agreement
Paragraph 10 of the Agreement provides that prior to filing
a motion for relief of a violation of paragraphs 2, 4, or 5 of
the Agreement, NAACP must “specify in writing to the Postal
Service the alleged violation” and must give “the Postal Service
at least five days’ notice to investigate the allegations.”
Agreement, ECF No. 170 ¶ 10. The Postal Service argues that the
Court is without jurisdiction to consider the motion because
NAACP did not comply with this requirement when it did not wait
at least five days after the Proposed Rule was published in the
Federal Register on June 2, 2026 before filing the instant
motion. See Opp’n, ECF No. 175 at 16-17.
On April 2, 2026, the first business day after the EO was
issued and sixty-two days before filing the motion, NAACP wrote
to the Postal Service to inform it that the rulemaking directed
by the EO would cause it to violate the Agreement. Reply,
Exhibit A, ECF No. 177—1 at 7-8. The Postal Service acknowledged
receipt on the same day and not having received a response,
NAACP sent a follow up on April 8, 2026. Id. at 6-7. The Postal
Service responded on April 14, 2026, stating that paragraph 10
was not implicated because “[i]t is . . . premature to know what
final rule will emerge from the notice-and-comment process,
including how any such rule would implicate existing legal
15 authorities.” Id. at 5. NAACP responded on April 16, 2026,
stating that “[a]s we understand it, the EO directs USPS to
initiate a rulemaking that would violate [its] commitments . . .
required under the Settlement Agreement. Under these
circumstances, we do not think the concerns set forth in our
April 2 email are premature.” Id. at 4. The Postal Service
acknowledged receipt the same day. Id. at 3. On June 2, 2026,
NAACP informed the Postal Service that it intended to file the
instant motion and asked the Postal Service to confirm its
opposition, which it did the same day. Id. at 2.
The Postal Service asserts that NAACP “cannot bootstrap
conferral about one issue (the Executive Order) into an adequate
conferral about the issue it actually challenges here, the
NPRM.” Opp’n, ECF No. 175 at 17. The Postal Service’s argument
is without merit. Sixty-two days before filing the motion, NAACP
wrote to the Postal Service to inform it that the rulemaking
directed by the EO would cause the Postal Service to violate the
Agreement and the Postal Service declined to substantively
engage with NAACP on the issue. The Proposed Rule was issued
pursuant to the EO and incorporates the requirements set forth
in the EO. Compare Proposed Rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 32915 (June 2,
2026) with Exec. Order, 91 Fed. Reg. 17125 (Mar. 31, 2026). For
all these reasons, NAACP complied with the meet and confer
requirement in the Agreement.
16 D. The Postal Service’s Claim-Splitting Argument Is Without Merit
Finally, the Postal Service relies on Zerilli v. Evening
News Association to argue that NAACP “is engaging in
impermissible claim splitting” because it should have brought
its motion as part of NAACP v. Trump, No. 26-1151. Opp’n, ECF
175 at 17-18. In Zerilli, the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit held that a plaintiff has “no right to
maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter
at the same time in the same court and against the same
defendant.” 628 F.2d 217, 222 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (citation
omitted). The Postal Service claims that NAACP meets the Zerilli
criteria for claim splitting because: (1) it is challenging the
EO that prompted the Proposed Rule in NAACP v. Trump and in the
instant motion; (2) both that case and the instant motion
challenge Section 3(b) of the EO; (3) both cases are in the same
court; and (4) both cases are against the same defendant. Opp’n,
ECF No. 175 at 18.
The Postal Service’s argument is without merit. “[C]laim-
splitting prohibits duplicative litigation filed before
judgment.” Steele v. United States, 144 F.4th 316, 324 (D.C.
Cir. 2025). There is nothing duplicative about the instant case
and NAACP v. Trump. This case was filed on August 20, 2020,
alleging claims for (1) Non-statutory review of unlawful agency
17 action for failure to follow the procedures required by 39
U.S.C. § 3661, (2) Non-statutory review of unlawful agency
action that is arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with
39 U.S.C. § 101(e), (3) Mandamus to enforce 29 U.S.C. § 3991,
and (4) Mandamus to enforce 39 U.S.C. § 101(e). See Am. Compl.,
ECF No. 149. It was resolved with the Agreement and closed in
2021. The instant motion seeks relief based on the Proposed Rule
issued pursuant to the EO. By contrast, NAACP v. Trump was filed
nearly six years later on April 3, 2026, alleging claims for (1)
Ultra Vires Presidential Action, (2) Violation of Separation of
Powers—Unlawful Intrusion on Congressional Authority and
Violation of Federalism, (3) Violation of Separation of Powers—
Unlawful Intrusion on State Authority, (4) Constitutional Right
to Vote, (5) Violation of the Postal Service’s Statutory
Authority, and (6) Agency Action Contrary to the Privacy Act
arising out of the EO. That both involve the EO in some way does
not turn the claims into the same “subject matter.”
Furthermore, NAACP could not seek the relief requested in
the instant motion in a separate action: the enforcement of the
terms of the Agreement that resolved this case can only be
enforced through a motion filed in this case. See Garcia Ramirez
v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 812 F. Supp. 3d 86, 97 (D.D.C.
2025) (“District courts have the authority to enforce the terms
of their mandates.”) (citation omitted).
18 For all these reasons, NAACP is not engaging in
impermissible claim splitting.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS NAACP’s Motion
to Enforce Compliance with the Settlement Agreement and Court
Order, ECF No. 171. An appropriate Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge July 1, 2026