October Term 2003 · Docket 02-1290
Can private parties sue the Postal Service for antitrust violations?
The dispute centers on whether the Postal Service qualifies as a person under federal antitrust laws.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Edwin Kneedler argued the Ninth Circuit erred in allowing the suit.
Kneedler stated Congress treated the Postal Service as a federal entity.
Krent argued the Postal Service fits the definition of a person.
Krent noted Congress authorized the Postal Service to compete in markets.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 35-29 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 35-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 25-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 25-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-57 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 27-29
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the legal status of the Postal Service in commercial markets.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 35-29 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 35-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 25-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 25-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-57 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-57
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 1, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 27-29
What each side wants
The Postal Service seeks dismissal of the antitrust lawsuit.
Flamingo Industries seeks to recover treble damages from the Postal Service.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 35-29 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 35-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 25-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 25-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-57 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-57
What each side says
The Postal Service argues Congress treated it as a federal entity.
Flamingo Industries argues the Postal Service acts as a commercial person.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 35-29 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 35-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 25-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 25-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-57 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-57
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the Postal Service filed unrelated copyrights.
The Court questioned the scope of the Postal Service's commercial activities.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 27-29
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal antitrust liability for government agencies.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 35-29 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 35-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 25-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 25-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-57 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-57
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 27-29
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 35-29 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 35-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 25-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 25-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-57 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 35-29 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 35-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 25-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 25-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-57 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-57
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.