In two landmark suits against prior Postmasters
General, this Court set bedrock principles of judicial
review of executive action in equity. Kendall v. U.S. ex
rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524 (1838); Am. Sch. of
Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94, 110
(1902). Kendall applies only to the district court here,
and McAnnulty applies to all district courts. The
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the Court's
APA precedents extend judicial review from those
suffering "direct injury" (i.e., violation of legal rights)
to those arguably within a looser zone of interests. The
Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 ("PRA") exempted
the Postal Service ("USPS") from some APA applications. Air Courier Conf. v. Am. Postal Workers Union,
498 U.S. 517, 523 n.3 (1991), reserved the question of
the scope of PRA's exemption, noting that it "at most"
barred APA review. Prior D.C. Circuit precedent holds
the PRA to bar all non-APA nonstatutory review
except ultra vires review. The Sixth and Seventh
Circuits allow non-APA review to continue, including
claims that USPS violated its own rules. The courts
below extended the D.C. Circuit precedent — which
had involved executive or quasi-legislative USPS
action — to USPS adjudications, meaning that Article
II administrative judges have unreviewable authority
to redirect mail and property, in violation of Article
III's vesting federal judicial power in the judiciary.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether the PRA impliedly bars non-APA
review, including claims of arbitrary-and-capricious
conduct or failure to follow USPS's own rules.

2. Whether the PRA violates Article III as
applied to bar judicial review of USPS adjudications.

Whether the Postal Reorganization Act impliedly bars non-APA review, including claims of USPS conduct or failure to follow its own rules