Mail Advertising Corporation of America, Inc. v. United States Postal Service
MAIL ADVERTISING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Inc., Et Al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Although denominated an appeal from an order of the District Court denying the motion for a convocation of a three judge District Court pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 2282, we have treated the papers before us as a petition for a writ of mandamus directing such convocation. After careful consideration of the arguments set out in the papers and in oral argument, we deny the petition on the ground that no substantial constitutional question is presented.
Petitioners sought an injunction against enforcement of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, 39 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
(1970), as it applies to the authority of the Postal Service to set temporary rates, asserting a number of alleged constitutional deficiencies.
We find no merit in the contention that the Act does not contain sufficient standards laid down by Congress to guide the Postal Service in its determination of the level of temporary rates. See the limitations contained in 39 U.S.C. § 3641 (1970) and the reference therein to the other provisions of the title.
With respect to the due process claim, we also find meritless the contention that the Act precludes any judicial scrutiny of temporary rates. Section 3628 which limits the jurisdiction of the courts, deals only with decisions of the Commission or the Governors; not with the Board of Governors — which exercises the power of the Postal Service to set temporary rates. See 39 U.S.C. §§ 102 , 202, 3641 (1970).
Petitioners’ remaining claims regarding the Act’s unconstitutionality concern the lack of any express provision for a hearing prior to implementation of temporary rates, and the lack of any provision to account for the revenue received by the Postal Service pursuant to temporary rates which are subsequently found to be excessive. These claims appear to us, however, to be directed to the implementation of the statute rather than to the statute itself. Without intimating any view on the merits of such claims, we hold that they do not necessitate the convocation of a three judge District Court.
Petition denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- National Ass'n of Greeting Card Publishers v. United States Postal Service
- National Association of Greeting Card Publishers v. The United States Postal Service, United Parcel Service of America, Inc.
- Direct Mail/marketing Association, Inc. v. United States Postal Service
- Associated Third Class Mail Users v. United States Postal Service
- Associated Third Class Mail Users, National Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults v. United States Postal Service, Postal Rate Commission Associated Third Class Mail Users, National Easter Seal Society for Crippledchildren and Adults v. United States Postal Service Postal Rate Commission
- Associated Third Class Mail Users v. United States Postal Service
Most recent
- Direct Mail/Marketing Ass'n v. United States Postal Service
- Associated Third Class Mail Users, National Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults v. United States Postal Service, Postal Rate Commission Associated Third Class Mail Users, National Easter Seal Society for Crippledchildren and Adults v. United States Postal Service Postal Rate Commission
- Associated Third Class Mail Users v. United States Postal Service
- National Association of Greeting Card Publishers v. The United States Postal Service, United Parcel Service of America, Inc.
- National Ass'n of Greeting Card Publishers v. United States Postal Service
- Associated Third Class Mail Users v. United States Postal Service
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.