Cases

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued February 7, 2020 Decided June 9, 2020 No. 19-5168 ANATOL ZUKERMAN AND CHARLES KRAUSE REPORTING, LLC, A D.C. LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, APPELLANTS v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the Di

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _____________________________ ) INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM ) INSTITUTE et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 00-1246 (RWR) ) UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ) ) Defenda

398 F.Supp. 562 (1975) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (ATLANTA LOCAL) et al. v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. Civ. A. No. C-75-281-A. United States District Court, N. D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. July 3, 1975. *563 S. Ralph Martin, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs. William D. Mallard, Jr., U.

*63Based on USPS's stated purpose in establishing the pilot program, its reliance on nonpublic-forum case law in the final rule, its use of the customized postage program as a commercial enterprise, and its strengthening of the restrictions over time, the Court concludes that, regardless of how one might characterize the prior Guidelines, the customized postage program un

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON. KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge. The United States Postal Service (USPS) seeks review of three orders of the Postal Regulatory Commission (Commission or PRC) implementing our mandate in GameFly, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Commission (GameFly I), 704 F.3d 145 (D.C.Cir.2013).

741 F.Supp.2d 27 (2010) INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM INSTITUTE et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant. Civil Action No. 00-1246 (RWR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 8, 2010. *29 David F. Klein, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs/Defendant.</

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge BROWN. GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: This appeal is the latest step in a long-running controversy over the use of post office sidewalks to gather signatures on petitions. Originally a dispute over a ban on soliciting signatures on all post office property, the issues in the case have changed in

516 F.Supp. 810 (1980) Napoleon CHISHOLM, Plaintiff, and H. C. Rushing, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. The UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al., Defendants. No. C-C-73-148. United States District Court, W. D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division. October 3, 1980. *811 *812 Jonathan Wa

557 F.3d 58 (2009) Rinaldo DEL GALLO, III, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Roger PARENT, United States Postal Service Postmaster; Pittsfield Post Office, Defendants, Appellees, Anthony Riello, Chief, Pittsfield Police Department, Defendant. No. 08-1511. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard December 1, 2008. Decided February 25, 2009.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge GARLAND. GARLAND, Circuit Judge. A United States Postal Service regulation bans “soliciting signatures on petitions, polls, or surveys” on “all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service.” The district court rejected the plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge to this regulation, conclud

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-3121 ___________________________ Organization for Black Struggle; St. Louis A. Philip Randolph Institute; Greater Kansas City A. Philip Randolph Institute; National Council of Jewish Women, St. Louis; Missouri Faith Voices

116 F.Supp.2d 65 (2000) INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM INSTITUTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant. No. Civ.A. 00-1246(RWR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 31, 2000. *66 *67 John R. Ferguson, Ky Elaine Kirby, Swidler, Berlin, Shereff & F

MEMORANDUM OPINION ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, District Judge. Plaintiff Reese Brothers, Inc. (“RBI”) brings this action against the United States Postal Service (“Postal Service” or “USPS”) seeking to set aside a final agency decision that assessed a revenue deficiency against RBI in excess of $3.5 million for improper use of the nonprofit mailing ra

91 F.Supp.2d 500 (2000) John AGOSTA, Frances Agosta, Allan Dorman, Particia Dorman, Stanley Futoran, Deboarah Futoran, Neil Munro, and Lilian Munro, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant. No. 00-CV-1124(ADS)(ETB). United States District Court, E.D. New York. March 24, 2000. *501 William Holst, Commack, NY, for Pl

BERYL A. HOWELL, Chief Judge Section 8 of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 serves two statutory purposes: (1) "aiding low-income families in obtaining a decent place to live" and (2) "promoting economically mixed housing." 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(a). This case is not about what is good housing policy, however. This case is about the rule of law-whether an agency effectively may suspend a duly promulgated regulation without observing the proce

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA MENDOZA, Individually and No. 22-16478 on behalf of Stephen Mendoza; EDWARD A. CONTRERAS, D.C. No. 4:74-cv-00090- Plaintiffs-Appellants, DCB UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OPINION Intervenor-Plaintiff- Appellee, and RO

TIMBERS, Circuit Judge: On January 13, 1992, we entered a judgment and filed an opinion, 953 F.2d 790, which reversed a summary judgment entered April 8, 1991 in the District of Connecticut, Alan H. Nevas, District Judge, in an action entitled Longo v. United States Postal Service, 761 F.Supp. 220. The district court held unconstitutional

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-1279 BRIAN HUSSEY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE; CHRISTINE ELOW, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Cambridge Police Department, Defendants, Appellees, BRANVILLE G. BARD, JR., in his individual capacity, Defendant.

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 28, 2022 Decided August 15, 2023 No. 21-7108 FREDERICK DOUGLASS FOUNDATION, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1

Case: 24-1842 Document: 113 Page: 1 Filed: 05/14/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ GLOBAL K9 PROTECTION GROUP, LLC, MICHAEL STAPLETON ASSOCIATES, LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. UNITED STATES, AMERICAN K-9 DETECTION SERVICES, LLC, Defendants-Appellees v. K2 SOLUTI