High Court Ruling Backs Private Mail Carriers

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that postal workers have no right to contest the government’s move to drop part of its postal monopoly in favor of private carriers.

The unanimous ruling benefits private carriers who pick up bulk mail in the United States and deliver it to postal offices abroad.

In 1979, the U.S. Postal Service first lifted part of its monopoly to allow private carriers, such as Federal Express and United Parcel Service, to deliver “extremely urgent” letters across the nation.

Taking advantage of this precedent, other carriers, such as DHL, began overseas service at lower rates than the postal service.

The postal unions did not contest the domestic delivery of “extremely urgent” letters, but filed suit when the Postal Service refused to block the international carriers. They based their challenge on a law that requires the Postal Service to act in the public interest. They said the exemption given to international carriers would cost the Postal Service nearly $100 million a year in lost revenue, result in a loss of jobs and benefit private business.

Two years ago, a federal appeals court ruled for the unions, eliminating private carriers from overseas mail deliveries. But the decision was not put into effect pending the further appeal of the case (Air Courier Conference vs. Postal Workers Union, 89-1416).

The Supreme Court reversed that decision Tuesday, concluding that the unions had no legal standing to even contest the issue in court.

“The postal monopoly . . . exists to ensure that postal services will be provided to the citizenry at-large, and not to secure employment for postal workers,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said for the court.

In 1792, even before the Post Office offered home pickup and delivery, Congress passed the first laws forbidding the private delivery of mail on postal roads built by the government. The postal monopoly was written into law in 1845, Rehnquist noted.

In recent decades, the Postal Service has come under pressure from business to lift its postal monopoly on the theory that mail could be moved more efficiently by private companies.

In other action, the court ruled 5 to 4 that persons who sign their names to lawsuits that prove frivolous and baseless can be fined, along with their attorneys.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures allows a judge to fine those who file lawsuits whose facts or claims are without merit. This rule applies not only to attorneys, Tuesday’s decision said, but also to their clients and others who sign their names to legal complaints.

The ruling in the case (Business Guides vs. Chromatic Communications, 89-150) upheld a $13,866 fine against a publisher of trade journals.