I searched and can’t find if it’s a law or a regulation promulgated by the USPS. If the latter, maybe the USPS should change the regulation.
Not only do I see mail trucks on Sunday I see then long after our regular mail person has delivered our mail on the 6 other days of the week. I received one a few weeks ago, the package was shipped via UPS to my local post office then delivered to me. The UPS shipping label had the local post office address, my address was on a different shipping label with the USPS logo on it. This delivery was made about 9 pm.
It appears to be an actual Federal law.
Postal carrier checking in.
We deliver packages all the time. I worked “Amazon Sunday” yesterday. We put packages in the mail is whenever expedient.
That said, I don’t see USPS barcodes on that package.
So, reading that statute (great find, btw) that seems more like a law against trying to get USPS to deliver something without paying proper postage rather than merely using a mailbox to deliver something by other means.
But I see how it could be read (or easily misread) another way.
Here’s the actual text from that site: the opening phrase (bolded by me below) suggests, to this non-lawyer, that it absolutely covers someone who deposits something into someone’s mailbox.
But that’s the part that seems to narrow it to not include merely using a mailbox.
I’m not sure where you’re getting that, but reading the paragraph, at least to me, is pretty clear: “If you place something that is ‘mailable matter,’ like a sales circular, directly into someone’s mailbox, rather than paying postage on it and sending it through the mail, you are violating this law.”
ASL_v2.0 I agree with you. Putting something in someones box for them to receive, doesn’t appear to violate the law. The post office is paid postage to deliver items to the recipients box.
Has there any precedent case law where the USPS has attempted to fine someone for merely putting something in the recipients box?
Why would you put something mailable into a mailbox if not to avoid paying for postage? Not to get the postal service to deliver it without payment, but just to avoid payment. Say I walk around the neighborhood putting my kids birthday party invitations in their friend’s mailboxes. Why am I doing that if not to avoid paying for stamps? And it’s 100% fine to avoid paying for postage - I can email, call knock on the door, stick the invitation in their fence. As long as I don’t use the mailbox. This is never going to be enforced against someone sticking party invitations in mailboxes and delivery services know better. The people who run into trouble with this are those who are distributing more than a few party invitations but not so many as to be worth using a professional service - a local store hiring some kids to distribute flyers or a civic group distributing newsletters , that sort of thing.
ETA Just found this https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/854/united-states-postal-service-v-greenburgh-civic-associations#:~:text=Pixabay%2C%20public%20domain)
I was an LSM clerk. Just an FYI.
It doesn’t say to avoid paying postage, it says to avoid paying lawful postage. What is “lawful postage” on something USPS has not had to deliver?
I read it as being more for the purpose of preventing fraudulent mailings, such as by using a fake/counterfeit stamp to get USPS to take it and mail it essentially for free. Possibly also mailings with knowingly insufficient postage, such as overweight packages relative to postage paid.
When I get off my phone and to a proper computer, I’ll see if I can’t find a full version of that case, with proper citations to the actual statute to see if it’s the same or otherwise still in effect.
Second bolding mine. Seems quite relevant, no?
Scenario 1: Amazon shipment, postage paid, sent via UPS but USPS handles final mile. Okay, right?
Scenario 2: neighbor puts block party invitations into each mailbox, no stamp. Not okay, right?
If that is what is meant, it makes no sense. If I put a fake/counterfeit stamp on my invitation to get USPS to deliver it for free, I am not depositing it into a letter box accepted by the USPS for the receipt of mail on the recipients house , I’m depositing it in a big blue mailbox on the street. If it had been meant to prohibit fake/counterfeit stamps, it wouldn’t apply to boxes established/approved/accepted by USPS for receipt of mail (like the one on my house), it would only apply to those receptacles where mail is deposited for delivery. IOW those big blue boxes on the street.
Anyway , there’s a separate section of the US Code for counterfeit stamps
I’m still looking over my shoulder for The Man every day as I recall how many copies of The Ann Arbor News I stuffed into mailboxes in the summer of 1980!
(and we knew it was illegal back then too)
It ain’t illegal if you don’t get caught, right? 
Too damn right.
Who cares?
Having reviewed the text of the case itself, it seems it is the same statute, and the wording has not changed appreciably, so I guess you’re right. Although I am still dissatisfied (as to the decision itself–not challenging the outcome as it’s been interpreted here) as the case seems not to pay much notice to “with intent to avoid payment of lawful postage thereon,” what exactly that means, and why it should apply even to “mailable items” that the purported violator is not in fact seeking or intending to have mailed.
I interpret that as, “you stick your flyer (or whatever) directly into people’s mailboxes, in order to avoid having to pay postage to the USPS, in order to have them deliver it.”
I suspect that “mailable items” is mean to refer to “something which could legitimately be mailed through the USPS” (a letter, a sales flyer, etc.).
The sender, in this case, is absolutely intending for the item to not only be “delivered” to the recipient, but to have it placed in the recipient’s mailbox, so that the recipient sees and retrieves it when they get their “legitimate” mail. What they are not seeking --and, in fact, what they are seeking to avoid – is paying the USPS postage, for the privilege of having the USPS deliver it, and for legal access to the recipient’s mailbox.
Agree w @kenobi_65. This isn’t rocket surgery, nor advanced constitutional divination.
Originally USPS had an absolute monopoly on delivery of (loosely speaking) paperwork. If it was paper and you wanted it delivered to somebody, USPS was the only game in the country, period amen. They owned the drop-off boxes and they “owned” for a certain sort of limited ownership, the delivery receptacles (home mailboxes) too.
IIRC when FedEx got going there was some battling, and maybe even some legislative changes to permit them to move paper: namely the famous FedEx letter that launched their empire.
USPS has also had “parcel post” since forever. But they did not have a legal monopoly on the right to deliver parcels. Only to use the USPS mailboxes as part of the end-to-end delivery process. Outfits like UPS or many many others going back decades could deliver parcels to the home or businesses. But not to / through / into the USPS official reception box.
Is this perhaps silly now in 2023? Sure. Is the law overdue for a revamp? Probably. Has it been? Nope.