In United States Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Associations 453 U.S. 114 (1981), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a statute that prohibited the deposit of unstamped “mailable matter” in a mailbox approved by the United States Postal Service.

Congress promulgated the challenged statute in 1934, primarily to prevent private delivery services from using official post office mailboxes without paying the government—in other words, to protect the postal monopoly. In Greenburgh, the government argued that the statute facilitated a more efficient delivery of the mail and protected the privacy of postal patrons.

Relying principally on the long history of the post office and its monopoly on “mailable matter,” the Court upheld the statute in a decision written by Justice William H. Rehnquist. Analogizing mailboxes to the military base in Greer v. Spock (1976),the prison in Adderly v. Florida (1966), and the public transit advertisements in Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights (1974), the Court concluded that mailboxes were not a public forum. Since the law was content neutral and did not place unbridled discretion in a government official, the Court concluded that it did not violate the First Amendment.

Justice Byron R.White concurred in the judgment, concluding that the mailbox was part of the postal system. As the government could constitutionally charge a fee for the service of mail delivery, it could likewise charge for use of the mailbox.

Justice William J.Brennan Jr. also concurred in the judgment. He concluded that the mailbox was a public forum but that the law was a permissible reasonable “time, place, and manner” regulation.

Justice Thurgood Marshall used the “public forum analysis,” but he dissented, concluding that the burden on First Amendment interests was too great and that the statute’s purpose could be advanced by less intrusive alternatives, such as a “nondiscriminatory permit requirement for depositing unstamped circulars in letterboxes.”

Justice John Paul Stevens also dissented, arguing that the mailbox was private property, not a public forum. He reasoned that a statute permitting homeowners to decide whether to receive unstamped communications would be less burdensome on the First Amendment and would still further the government’s interest without impeding the free flow of communication.

Send Feedback on this article