Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 1
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 26A305
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL. v.
CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[September 14, 2026]
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON
and by her referred to the Court is denied. The Government
is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the
District Court’s preliminary injunction. And the equitable
factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this
Court do not favor a stay.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.

In my view, based on the briefing the Court has received
at this interim stage, there is at least a fair prospect that
the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory
authority. See 39 U. S. C. §401(2). But applying the rule
in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state
and local election officials do not have sufficient time to
reasonably implement the rule before the elections. See 39
U. S. C. §3001(m); 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A). For that reason, I
concur in the denial of the application for stay.

Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 1
ALITO, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 26A305
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL. v.
CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[September 14, 2026]
JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting from the denial of application for stay.

The Court incorrectly denies the Government’s application for a stay of a universal injunction that bars implementation of a final rule concerning election ballot mail. Some
of the plaintiffs lack standing, while the remainder are pursuing a claim that this Court has recently called a “‘Hail
Mary pass’” that “‘rarely succeeds.’” NRC v. Texas, 605
U. S. 665, 681–682 (2025). The Government has made the
showings necessary for a stay, so I respectfully dissent.
I
Some five months ago, the President issued an “internal
directive” to “his subordinates mandating,” among other
things, that the United States Postal Service “‘initiate a
proposed rulemaking’” regarding election ballot mail.
Trump v. California, 609 U. S. ___, ___ (2026) (per curiam)
(slip op., at 2). Just days after the President’s directive issued, numerous organizations and a group of States led by
California sued in the District of Massachusetts. The District Court entered a series of injunctions blocking implementation of the directive. This Court eventually stayed
one of the injunctions because the District Court likely
lacked jurisdiction because the suit was premature. Id., at
___, ___–___ (slip op., at 1, 3–8).

2 POSTAL SERVICE v. CALIFORNIA
ALITO, J., dissenting
In late August, the Postal Service promulgated a final
rule pursuant to the President’s directive. Ballot Mail for
Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 54966 (2026). The rule requires federal ballot mail to be sent in envelopes with three
special features: an election-mail logo, the ability to be
scanned using high-speed processing equipment, and a specialized barcode unique to each voter. Id., at 54990–54991.
States must design envelopes that adhere to these requirements and submit the designs to the Postal Service for review. Ibid. Finally, States must upload basic information
about the voter to a Postal Service portal. Id., at 54991.
Under the rule, the Postal Service must review mail sent
from States to voters for compliance with these requirements. Ibid. Mailings that fail to comply “will not be accepted and will be returned to the” State, which can then
resubmit the mail after correcting errors. Ibid.
Within days of the final rule’s issuance, the District Court
entered a temporary restraining order that it later converted to a nationwide preliminary injunction stopping the
rule from taking effect. The Government applied to this
Court for a stay.
II
To obtain a stay, the applicant must make a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable
harm. In close cases, we also consider the balance of the
equities. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190
(2010) (per curiam).
A
The Government is likely to succeed on the merits of its
appeal.
To begin, the District Court issued a nationwide injunction based on claims asserted by several plaintiff organizations that likely lack standing. These organizations first
claim a direct organizational injury because the rule

Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 3
ALITO, J., dissenting
supposedly thwarts their ability to educate members about
voting. Yet this theory of injury is based on “‘a setback to
the organization’s abstract social interests’” and an effort
to “spend its way into standing simply by expending money
to gather information and advocate against the defendant’s
action[s].” FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602
U. S. 367, 394 (2024). The organizations also assert associational standing based on injuries to unnamed members
who never filed declarations themselves. Such cryptic filings cannot be used to show standing. We have “required
plaintiff-organizations to make specific allegations establishing that at least one identified member had suffered or
would suffer harm” and to additionally meet the “requirement of naming the affected members.” Summers v. Earth
Island Institute, 555 U. S. 488, 498–499 (2009).
As for the plaintiff States, their claims are unlikely to
succeed. They claim the rule violates the Elections Clause.
U. S. Const., Art. I, §4, cl. 1. This claim, however, collapses
into an inquiry about whether the Postal Service has statutory authority to promulgate the rule. Even assuming the
rule here is a regulation of elections, Congress may create
such rules under the Elections Clause. And, by statute, it
may authorize the Postal Service to issue such rules. Because litigants cannot convert claims that a federal entity
has “acted in excess of [its] statutory authority” into constitutional claims, see Dalton v. Specter, 511 U. S. 462, 472–
474 (1994), the crux of the dispute is whether the Postal
Service has statutory authority to issue the rule.
To assert a claim that an agency exceeded its statutory
authority, the challenger needs a cause of action, which is
typically provided by the Administrative Procedure Act.
5 U. S. C. §§702, 704. However, Congress broadly exempted “the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service”
from review under the APA. 39 U. S. C. §410(a); see also
Mittleman v. Postal Regulatory Comm’n, 757 F. 3d 300, 305
(CADC 2014). It also channeled many claims against the

4 POSTAL SERVICE v. CALIFORNIA
ALITO, J., dissenting
Postal Service to initial review before the Postal Regulatory
Commission followed by review in the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See 39 U. S. C.
§§3662–3663. These provisions tightly constrain APA review of Postal Service actions.
Unsurprisingly, the statutory claim here is not subject to
APA review. It is a challenge to the scope of the Postal Service’s general rulemaking authority and therefore exempt
from the APA. §410(a).*
Since the plaintiff States cannot proceed under the APA,
they must instead invoke an equitable cause of action
known as an ultra vires claim. Because such claims rely on
a judicially-implied cause of action and may be used to “endrun” statutes created by Congress that restrict judicial review, this Court’s “cases have strictly limited nonstatutory
ultra vires review” to a narrow set of circumstances. NRC
v. Texas, 605 U. S., at 681. Crucially, the relevant agency
action must be “entirely in ‘excess of [the agency’s] delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition’ in a
statute.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted). Such a claim is thus
“‘essentially a Hail Mary pass’” that “‘rarely succeeds.’”
Id., at 681–682; see also Federal Express Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 39 F. 4th 756, 764 (CADC 2022) (“ultra
vires claims are confined to ‘extreme’ agency error where
the agency has ‘stepped so plainly beyond the bounds of [its
statutory authority], or acted so clearly in defiance of it, as
to warrant the immediate intervention of an equity court’”).
That Hail Mary pass is unlikely to be successfully completed here. The Postal Service has broad authority to
——————
*The claim is arguably channeled to the Postal Regulatory Commission for review in the first instance. The lower courts have not addressed
that issue despite its jurisdictional implications. See Axon Enterprises,
Inc. v. FTC, 598 U. S. 175, 185 (2023); Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better
Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 94 (1998). And because the Government is
likely to succeed for another reason, resolution of that question is not
necessary

Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 5
ALITO, J., dissenting
regulate the mail. It holds the “general powers” to “adopt,
amend, and repeal such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this title, as may be necessary in the execution
of its functions under this title and such other functions as
may be assigned to [it] under any provisions of law outside
of this title.” 39 U. S. C. §401(2). Through this provision,
Congress has “broadly empowered [the Postal Service] to
adopt rules and regulations.” Postal Service v. Council of
Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 U. S. 114, 123 (1981). The
Postal Service also possesses the power “to provide for the
collection, handling, transportation, delivery, forwarding,
returning, and holding of mail, and for the disposition of
undeliverable mail.” 39 U. S. C. §404(a)(1).
If the question of the Postal Service’s power were before
us in something other than the context of an ultra vires
claim, the Government’s argument would present a difficult
question. But here the question is different. In order to
assert an ultra vires claim, the plaintiffs must show that
the challenged regulation of envelopes here is “entirely ‘in
excess’” of the power to govern collecting, handling, transporting, delivering, forwarding, and returning of mail.
NRC v. Texas, 605 U. S., at 681. The same is true of the
requirement to pass along information about each recipient
of ballot mail. At the very least, the Postal Service did not
act “‘contrary to a specific prohibition’” in enacting the rule.
Ibid. (emphasis deleted).
The plaintiff States resist these conclusions by invoking
a highly technical provision tucked away in a corner of the
Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. It concerns “nonmailable matter,” a hodgepodge of items ranging from those that
exceed the size and weight limits for certain classes of mail
to fragrance-advertising samples. See 39 U. S. C. §3001.
Under this provision, “proceedings concerning the mailability of matter under [chapter 30 of title 39] and chapters 71
and 83 of title 17 shall be conducted in accordance with [the
APA].” §3001(m). But a lawsuit claiming the Postal Service

6 POSTAL SERVICE v. CALIFORNIA
ALITO, J., dissenting
exceeded its authority under chapter 4 of title 39, see
§401(2), is not a proceeding concerning the mailability of
matter under chapter 30 of title 39. Such a broad reading
is difficult to square with Congress’ decision to exempt the
Postal Service from APA review except in narrow instances.
§§410(a), 3662–3663.
It is also not clear that the Postal Service created a new
class of nonmailable matter, let alone that it is specifically
prohibited from doing so. NRC v. Texas, 605 U. S., at 681.
The rule’s requirements appear more similar to other
threshold requirements for mailing—such as the basic requirement to list the recipient’s address on one side of the
package or stamping requirements—that do not render
noncompliant mail “nonmailable material.” Reading the
nonmailable material provisions to prohibit the rule’s conditions on mailing would allow niche provisions to swallow
the Postal Service’s otherwise broad power to regulate the
delivery of mail.
In sum, the plaintiff States’ statutory claim is based on a
contestable reading of a broadly drawn statute empowering
the Postal Service to regulate the mail. Given that the
plaintiff States advance an ultra vires claim, the Government must show only that the agency’s interpretation of the
statute is not “‘patently a misconstruction.’” Changji
Esquel Textile Co. v. Raimondo, 40 F. 4th 716, 722 (CADC
2022). I express no view on whether the Government would
be likely to succeed on de novo review of the Postal Service’s
powers. But for now, the Government has satisfied its burden of making a strong showing that the plaintiff States’
ultra vires claim is not likely to succeed.
B
The remaining equitable factors favor a stay as well. The
Government will suffer irreparable harm absent relief.
“Because reversal of the District Court’s [injunction] would
come too late for the 2026 midterms, the District Court’s

Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 7
ALITO, J., dissenting
errors deal a serious setback to the Executive’s goals while
this litigation unfolds.” Trump v. California, 609 U. S., at
___, (slip op., at 9) (internal quotation marks omitted).
As for the equities, the Government has a strong interest
in enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also “enhance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail” in order to better
detect election fraud. 91 Fed. Reg. 54972. On the other side
of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical effects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elections. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not
enough to convince me to deny the application.
First, as the District Court acknowledged, the States disagree about the nature of these effects. App. to Application
for Stay 44a. Twelve States supported the rule below and
asserted that compliance at this time is practicable.
Second, the plaintiff States and the courts bear a substantial share of the blame for the rule’s timing. In April,
the plaintiff States sued to challenge the President’s internal directive to subordinates mandating a rulemaking. For
months, this litigation cast a cloud over the Government’s
ability to issue a final rule. The District Court entered several injunctions months later prohibiting the Government
from undertaking that rulemaking. Not only was the Government subject to months of premature litigation and a series of injunctions that this Court later determined were
likely issued without jurisdiction, the Government had to
wait nearly another full month for this Court to issue its
decision so holding. Indeed, this Court spent from late July
to the end of August drafting nearly 40 pages of opinions,
including two dissents, despite the Government’s public notice that it would not publish a final rule while subject to
the injunctions, see 91 Fed. Reg. 44880, and its representation that it had a strong interest in issuing its rule in earlyto mid-August to allow time to implement it. The plaintiff
States cannot claim the timing of the rule tilts the equities

8 POSTAL SERVICE v. CALIFORNIA
ALITO, J., dissenting
in their favor when they, and courts hearing their claims,
are responsible for so much of the delay.
* * *
For these reasons, I would grant the Government’s application and respectfully dissent from the Court’s denial

President Trumps Statement

Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court, one that the Court System took forever to give, and then blamed it, in part, on no time left to implement a solution to our totally CORRUPT and out of control Mail-In voting “disaster,” which is a laughing stock all over the World, and where we are the only country that has to endure such a Nation Destroying SCAM. Justices Alito and Thomas, legends both, strongly disagreed with this horrible, highly political, ruling. It is a big loss for Republicans, and America itself, and makes cheating by the Radical Left “Dumocrats,” on Mail-In Ballots, a much easier thing to do – And now they have an open field to do so!

The Supreme Court has really let our Country down! Certain Justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats and are totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America. Their horrible decision on Tariffs will be costing the U.S.A., for many years to come, Trillions and Trillions of Dollars. They didn’t even state, “money paid does not have to be paid back,” much to the benefit of entities that truly hate our Country, and have been RIPPING IT OFF FOR YEARS, unnecessarily costing us, immediately, Billions of Dollars. Likewise, the Supreme Court’s Decision on Birthright Citizenship is a complete and total disaster for America, and has already led to massive corruption with respect to “citizenship” in our Country.

The damage done to America is incalculable, and they know this, just as everyone else does – It is an irreparable and unrecoverable harm! The Court’s inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our Country will go down, in a very negative way, in the annals of History. This Supreme Court is bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years. These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves, a Court that is costing the United States Trillions of Dollars with shockingly bad rulings that are of such magnitude that it won’t be easily possible for our Country to recover or heal. It is a Court that will go down as having rendered some of the most destructive, hurtful, and damaging decisions in our Country’s history. It is not easy for me to write this criticism of the United States Supreme Court – it will likely cost me dearly for years to come – but I feel it my obligation and duty, as President, to do so for the America we love! Thank you for your attention to this very important matter. God bless the U.S.A. President DONALD J. TRUMP

According to court records, between August and September 2024, Juckno was found in possession of more than 8,500 pieces of mail that he had held onto and failed to deliver to his customers. The mail included sensitive items such as California EDD correspondence, financial records, insurance records, medical correspondence, tax records, and utility bills. He was placed on leave and then resigned his position as a mail carrier shortly after this discovery.

The USPS Office of Inspector General conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joshua Banister and Joseph Barton are prosecuting the case.

If convicted, Juckno faces a maximum sentence of five years federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s time to start sending in wish requests for the holidays

WASHINGTON — 9/14/26 – Today marks the start of the 114th year of USPS Operation Santa and the U.S. Postal Service is now accepting holiday letters from children and families throughout the continental U.S., Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

Every year, thousands of families send letters to Santa at the North Pole. The beloved Postal Service program makes it possible for people to adopt and respond to these letters, fulfilling the holiday wishes of children and families across the country.

“The holidays are a time to celebrate the joy of the season. But for some, the simple act of exchanging even small gifts is out of reach,” says Sheila Holman, vice president of marketing for the Postal Service. “For more than 100 years, USPS Operation Santa has given kindhearted people the opportunity to make dreams come true for thousands of children and their families through simple acts of kindness.”

Submitted letters must follow the program guidelines found on USPSOperationSanta.com and be postmarked by Dec. 5 to be eligible for potential adoption and fulfillment — there is no guarantee that letters submitted to the program will be adopted. Letters should be sent to Santa’s official workshop address:

Letter Adoption

Registration to adopt letters starts Nov. 2, and people can register as individuals or groups. The letter adoption window opens on Nov. 16, and registrants can adopt single or family letters to help brighten the holidays for those in need.

For more information on the program, history, important dates and how to participate as either a letter writer or adopter, visit USPSOperationSanta.com.

# # #

The timing of Kiley’s appointment is an important one. Open Season is scheduled for November, and the division is responsible for communicating plan changes, overseeing carrier negotiations, and ensuring that enrollment information is accessible to all eligible beneficiaries. OPM’s 2027 FEHB Program Carrier Letter for All FEHB and PSHB Carriers calls for a stronger emphasis on prevention, wellness, digital health tools, cost-effective care, and long-term affordability, which will likely influence enrollees’ choices during Open Season. 

While the new leadership is not expected to directly impact enrollees’ ability to enroll or switch healthcare providers, it may influence how OPM communicates changes and addresses concerns during the enrollment period. Especially since OPM continues to face staffing reductions, leading to diminished customer care, including slower call center response times and processing delays. 

According to United States Attorney Brian D. Miller, co-defendants Cullen and Ferranti participated in a conspiracy to traffic in fentanyl wherein the drug distribution resulted in the deaths of three individuals. The co-defendants each previously pled guilty to the charges.

“Cullen and Ferranti used the dark web, cryptocurrency and the U.S. mail to distribute deadly fentanyl into communities across the country, and three people lost their lives as a result,” said HSI Philadelphia acting Special Agent in Charge Nathan Abel. “Today’s sentences reflect the seriousness of their crimes and the strength of HSI Philadelphia’s partnership with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. HSI will continue working with our federal, state and local partners to identify and dismantle drug trafficking networks wherever they operate, online or off, and to seek justice for the victims and families devastated by these crimes.”

“These sentences reflect the seriousness of using the U.S. Mail to distribute deadly narcotics.” Stated Christopher Nielsen, Inspector in Charge of the Philadelphia Division for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. “The Postal Inspection Service remains committed to identifying and dismantling criminal networks that misuse the mail and holding those responsible accountable. We thank our partners at Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania for their exceptional work in bringing this case to a successful conclusion.”

This case was the result of a joint investigation between Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) into a darknet vendor who was engaged in the sale of opioids over the internet. The opioids were sold in exchange for cryptocurrency and then distributed via the United States Mail. The various parcels containing drugs were sent from locations in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. Beginning in October of 2022, undercover agents conducted various purchases from the darknet vendor which were seized and later searched and found to contain fentanyl. During the course of the investigation, law enforcement determined that the darknet vendor profile was being run by co-defendants Cullen and Ferranti. In February of 2023, undercover agents executed a search warrant at the Cullen/Ferranti residence and recovered United States Currency, various electronic devices, drug ledgers consistent with narcotics distribution, cryptocurrency cold storage wallets, and controlled substances themselves. Law enforcement identified almost 1,000 entries in the drug ledgers, dating back to the summer of 2021, mailed to 49 states and various countries overseas. Upon seizing Cullen and Ferranti’s drug ledgers, law enforcement was able to further their investigation to connect shipments that were mailed out to three different people in three different states who ultimately died as a result of overdosing on the drugs that Cullen and Ferranti distributed.

The case was investigated by the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS). Assistant U.S. Attorney Luisa Honora Berti prosecuted the case.

Turner Jr. made his initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins on September 4, 2026. Turner Jr. is the lead and one of six defendants in the case, and all were indicted by grand jury on June 26, 2026.

The defendants charged in this conspiracy and their charges include:

• Marc Anderson, aka “K.T.C.” and “Sam Smith,” is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, one count of bank fraud, and one count of aggravated identity theft.
• Billy Ray Cameron Jr., aka “J.A.M.,” of Chicago, Illinois, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, one count of bank fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, and one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud.
• Devontay Colbert, aka “J.A.M.,” of Chicago, Illinois, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, one count of bank fraud, and one count of aggravated identity theft.
• Dontae Williams, aka “F.O.A.,” of Chicago, Illinois, was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, one count of bank fraud, and one count of aggravated identity theft.
• Takiya Shemwell, of Chicago, Illinois, was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud.

According to the indictment, from at least in or about November 2022 to at least on or about September 2024, Turner Jr., Anderson, Cameron Jr., Colbert, and Williams knowingly conspired to defraud banks and credit unions in the Twin Cities area by negotiating stolen checks.  The five defendants opened, or attempted to open, fraudulent and unauthorized bank accounts in the names of business victims at Twin Cities financial institutions. They then deposited checks payable to or paid from the business victims, which had been stolen from the United States mail, into the accounts using fraudulent personal identification and documentation related to the business victims. The defendants then fraudulently withdrew or attempted to withdraw the funds.

The five defendants engaged in the scheme by registering the payee business victims as new Minnesota Limited Liability Corporations. They then used the Limited Liability Corporation documents to open and attempt to open the unauthorized and fraudulent bank accounts. In opening the bank accounts, the defendants presented fraudulent identification in the names of other individuals and falsely claimed that they were authorized representatives of the payee business victims. After depositing the funds, the defendants and their co-conspirators withdrew the fraudulently obtained funds through cash withdrawals or cashier’s check purchases.

As part of the scheme, Turner Jr., Cameron Jr., and Shemwell, conspired to steal the business victims’ checks from the U.S. Mail.  Shemwell, who was then an employee of the United States Postal Service in Chicago, identified and stole business mail pieces which contained checks paid from or payable to the Business Victims. Shemwell then sold the business victims’ checks to Turner Jr. and Cameron Jr. in exchange for payments on a peer-to-peer money transfer application. Turner Jr. and Cameron Jr. then shared the stolen checks with other co-conspirators and with each other.

In the course of their scheme, these conspirators deposited or attempted to deposit business victim checks worth over $5.1 million at Twin Cities financial institutions. In total, the defendants were successful in stealing over $1.5 million in business victim funds.

The Minnesota Financial Crimes Task Force (MNFCTF) protects and serves the public by investigating financial crimes related to identity theft, with a special emphasis on organized criminal enterprises. The MNFCTF is comprised of multi-jurisdictional law enforcement agencies working together to provide investigative expertise and resources. The MNFCTF includes representatives from local, state, and Federal agencies.

This case is the result of an investigation conducted jointly under the auspices of the MNFCTF by the United States Postal Inspection Service, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Eagan Police Department, Richfield Police Department, and the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office, with significant assistance from the United States Marshals Service in Minnesota, Illinois, and Arizona.

Assistant United States Attorneys Rebecca E. Kline and Bryan T. Mette are prosecuting the case.

An indictment is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Vegen Hartoonian, 46, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit theft of government property and one count of aggravated identity theft.

Hartoonian, the lead defendant in this case, has been in federal custody since October 2025.

According to his plea agreement, from September 2023 to November 2024,

Hartoonian and his co-conspirators followed postal vehicles using rented vehicles such as a Dodge Caravan, BMW and GMC SUVs, and a Mitsubishi Outlander. The car rental used to follow a USPS vehicle during a September 2023 incident was paid for with stolen credit card information.

Once the mail carrier got out of the USPS vehicle to deliver mail, Hartoonian and his co-conspirators stole the postal vehicle, drove it to another location, and then stole the mail inside the vehicle.

In total, Hartoonian and his co-conspirators stole approximately 30 USPS postal vehicles – each vehicle valued at $11,651 – and the mail of approximately 232 victims and illegally possessed 100 credit and debit cards belonging to other people.

Hartoonian further admitted to unlawfully possessing a victim’s credit card number in connection with a scheme to steal USPS vehicles and the mail inside them during a January 2024 incident.

United States District Judge Christina A. Snyder scheduled a December 7 sentencing hearing, at which time Hartoonian will face a statutory maximum sentence of seven years in federal prison.

Three other defendants have already pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges in this case and remain in federal custody:

• Jose Arviso, 50, of San Bernardino;
• Sanjay Varma, 44, of Pasadena; and
• Juan Nuñez, 25, of Highland Park.

One other defendant – Mark Anthony Quitugua, 43, of Lincoln Heights – has pleaded not guilty to federal criminal charges and is scheduled to go to trial in January 2027. He is free on $10,000 bond.

The United States Postal Inspection Service is investigating this matter.

Assistant United States Attorney Neil P. Thakor of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section is prosecuting this case.

Joseph Nocella, Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Matthew M. Modafferi, Special Agent in Charge, United States Postal Service, Office of Inspector General, Northeast Area Field Office (USPS-OIG), announced the verdict.

“For more than 20 years and until her lies caught up to her, the defendant refused to come to work and instead collected tax-free disability benefits for a highly-exaggerated injury,” stated United States Attorney Nocella.  “Our Office and the Administration has made it a priority to hold accountable those who exploit government benefits programs for personal gain and steal funds that are designated for workers who truly need them.”

Mr. Nocella expressed his appreciation to the USPS-OIG and the United States Department of Labor (DOL) for their assistance with the case.

“This verdict sends a clear message that workers’ compensation fraud will not be tolerated,” stated USPS-OIG Special Agent in Charge Modafferi.  “These benefits are intended to support U.S. Postal Service employees who are truly injured, not those who misrepresent their condition for personal gain. The U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General remains committed to protecting the Postal Service, its employees, and federal benefit programs from fraud and abuse. We thank the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of New York and the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General for their partnership in this case.”

As proven at trial, in August 1997, Middleton, who was in her mid-forties, claimed that she had sustained an injury to her lower back while performing her duties as a postal clerk.  Middleton submitted a claim for compensation to the DOL and began receiving workers’ compensation benefits approximately three months later.  Middleton briefly returned to work in a limited duty capacity in February 1999, after a medical doctor found that she was in fact capable of working; but then claimed she had a recurrence of her back injury, which rendered her totally and permanently disabled.  She again began receiving workers’ compensation benefits – roughly two-thirds of her annual salary, tax-free – from the DOL.  Between November 1997 and September 2022, Middleton regularly submitted medical evaluations and records to the USPS and the DOL claiming that she was incapable of returning to work, and that she was totally disabled.  The evaluations claimed, for example, that Middleton could sit, stand, walk, bend, lift and reach above her shoulders for zero hours and could not participate in any physical activities because of her excruciating back pain.

However, the investigation revealed that between October 2015 and March 2022, Middleton engaged in numerous physical activities, including cleaning out a garage, sitting through a movie for more than two hours, standing for more than one hour at a cookie decorating class, climbing stairs and retail shopping.  Middleton was observed, and captured on video footage, carrying groceries and laundry bags, lifting and reaching for objects at heights she claimed she could not reach, bending to the floor to retrieve items, and hoisting a bag of potting soil from the bottom of her shopping cart into her vehicle.   Records from USPS and DOL indicate that Middleton received more than $900,000 in fraudulent workers’ compensation benefits as the result of her claimed physical limitations.

On April 7, the Department of Justice announced the creation of the National Fraud Enforcement Division (Fraud Division).  The Fraud Division is laser-focused on investigating and prosecuting those who commit fraud against the American people.  The Department’s work to combat fraud supports President Trump’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, a whole-of-government effort chaired by Vice President J.D. Vance to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse within Federal benefit programs.

The government’s case is being handled by the Criminal Section of the Office’s Long Island Division.  Assistant United States Attorneys Charles P. Kelly and Ashlyn Miranda are in charge of the prosecution, with the assistance of Paralegal Specialist Samantha Schroder, Legal Assistant Danielle Rompel, and Automated Litigation Specialist Michael Compitello.

The Defendant:

LUANN MIDDLETON
Age: 72
Glen Cove, New York

E.D.N.Y. Docket No. 25-CR-339 (GRB)

A disagreement concerning overtime escalated into yelling and profanity, resulting in a police call and a two-day unpaid emergency leave for the employee.

Affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment against the Title VII discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims asserted by a postal carrier, the Seventh Circuit found his comparator evidence lacking, and determined that no reasonable jury could conclude that the emergency leave placement was attributable to his race or national origin, rather than the heated confrontation he had on the workroom floor with his supervisor. As to the retaliation claim, it was undisputed that the employee had filed several EEO complaints and had suffered an adverse action. However, his claim for suspicious timing concerned a complaint that was closed more than three years before the incident on the workroom floor, a gap too great to raise an inference of causation (Ismail v. Steiner, No. 25-1412 (7th Cir. Sept. 10, 2026)).

The employee in this case was born in Palestine and identifies as Middle Eastern. He worked as a postal carrier, and his shift would start with sorting the day’s deliveries on the workroom floor.

Confrontation. On February 11, 2022, while the employee was sorting his deliveries on the workroom floor, his supervisor told him to return from his route by 5:30 p.m. They debated about how long the route should take given that day’s mail volume. The interaction escalated into yelling, and the supervisor and the union steward both asked the employee to move the discussion to the supervisor’s office. The employee refused and continued to yell profanity on the workplace floor.

In response, the supervisor left the floor and called the postmaster and the police. When law enforcement arrived, they escorted the employee out of the building. The employee was then placed on emergency off-duty status, resulting in his immediate removal from work and the docking of two days’ pay.

Complaints. Following this confrontation, the employee filed an EEO complaint about the event. An investigation found no evidence of discrimination or retaliation. As of July 2023, the employee had filed eight other EEO complaints between 2003 and 2018, and 31 union grievances between 2006 and January 2022.

After receiving the final agency decision for his complaint filed in response to the February 11 incident, the employee filed this lawsuit, asserting claims for race and national origin discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Although he did not expressly state a claim for a hostile work environment, the district court nonetheless considered such a claim out of an abundance of caution. Ultimately, the district court granted USPS’s motion for summary judgment against all claims, leading to this appeal.

Comparator. First, the appeals court considered the employee’s Title VII race and national origin discrimination claims. Applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, the first three factors of the employee’s prima facie case went unchallenged. However, the USPS did take issue with the final factor—whether a similarly situated employee received more favorable treatment.

As a comparator, the employee proffered a white, female carrier who also answered to the same supervisor. He contended that the comparator had confronted and yelled at the supervisor on the workroom floor, but was not escorted out by police. However, the employee did not observe the alleged incident firsthand and had no personal knowledge of the incident. Nor did he know whether the comparator ever faced any form of discipline. Further, the supervisor himself could not recall any serious confrontations with any other carriers.

The employee also pointed to the union steward, who testified that arguments between mail carriers and members of management occasionally took place on the workroom floor. However, the union steward did not identify the names or racial and ethnic identities of the mail carriers involved in these altercations. He also acknowledged that such confrontations were usually deescalated by the individuals involved.

Given this evidence, the employee failed to create a genuine issue of fact that the comparator had engaged in substantially comparable conduct and later received more favorable treatment. As a result, he could not make out a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework. In addition, even when taking the record as a whole, the appeals court agreed with the district court that no reasonable jury could conclude that the emergency placement of the employee was attributable to his race or national origin, rather than the heated altercation. Accordingly, the district court properly entered judgment in favor of the USPS on this claim.

Causation. As to the employee’s claim for retaliation, the USPS agreed that the employee engaged in protected activity by filing numerous EEO complaints and did not dispute that he suffered an adverse action that would dissuade others from filing future complaints. The issue with this claim turned on causation.

Here, the employee relied primarily on what he believed to be suspicious timing to draw a causal link between a previous EEO complaint and the February 11 incident. However, the EEO complaint on which the employee relied was filed in 2018 and was closed by January 9, 2019, a gap of more than three years prior to the February incident. This was “much too great to raise a reasonable inference of causation,” said the court.

Grievances. In an effort to save his retaliation claim, the employee also pointed to various union grievances he had filed, including one in January 2022. But those grievances complained of overtime and timekeeping processing and approval errors rather than actionable discrimination. Thus, they could not form the basis of a Title VII retaliation claim, explained the court.

Comparator again. Having failed to show suspicious timing, the employee again pointed to his proffered comparator to create an inference of retaliation. However, the court noted that nothing in the record indicated the comparator had filed any EEO complaints, making her inapt with regard to this claim.

Because the employee failed to present any evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that his protected activity under Title VII motivated the USPS’s treatment of him on February 11, the entry of summary judgment on this claim was appropriate.

Hostile work environment. Finally, the court considered the claim for a hostile work environment. The district court had assumed without deciding that the treatment suffered by the employee on February 11 was severe, humiliating, and physically threatening. The district court also assumed that being escorted off the workplace floor unreasonably interfered with the employee’s work performance. However, the district court could not find any evidence that the supervisor’s actions against the employee were motivated by his race or national origin. The appeals court here agreed.

Again, the court observed that the employee and supervisor had clearly clashed. However, based on the record, no reasonable jury could find that the supervisor’s treatment of the employee, however disrespectful or ill-advised, had anything to do with the employee’s race or national origin. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment was affirmed.

The case is No. 25-1412.

Judge: Lee, J.

Attorneys: Raed A. Shalabi (Law Office of Raed Shalabi) for Yousef A. Ismail. Paraisia R. Winston, Office of the U.S. Attorney, for David Steiner.

Cases: Discrimination NationalOrigin RaceDiscrimination PublicEmployees Retaliation IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews