⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The D C Circuit considers a dispute about oversized packages and the Postal Service’s duty to follow its own rules. Mark Edwards had received large parcels at his front door. The Postal Service ended that delivery, citing how far his home was from the carrier’s route. Edwards said the change violated the Postal Operations Manual and unfairly treated him differently from neighbors. He asked the Postal Regulatory Commission to order delivery resumed. The Commission examined and rejected his discrimination claim, but said it lacked authority to hear a separate claim that the Postal Service had violated the Manual. That authority, or jurisdiction, is the focus of this argument. Permission to hear the claim would not itself mean Edwards wins or gets home delivery restored. Section Thirty-Six Sixty-Two allows complaints about specified statutes, or regulations promulgated under them. Promulgated means formally issued. One listed provision, Section Four Oh One, paragraph Two, gives the Postal Service general rulemaking power. Both sides accept that the Manual is a Postal Service regulation. They disagree about which regulations Congress made enforceable through this complaint process. Kathleen Choi is a court-appointed amicus, a lawyer assisting the court, in support of Edwards. She will argue that the statute covers the Manual because it was issued under the Postal Service’s rulemaking authority. The Commission’s lawyer will urge a narrower reading: rules implementing the particular statutes Congress listed, not every operational rule the Postal Service adopts. Edwards seeks a remand, meaning a return to the Commission to consider his claim.

Mark Edwards v. Postal Regulatory Commission (No. 24-1370) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 19, 2026.