Opinion granting 26A124

… expending funds before the Postal Service finalizes a rule. Spending money to hedge against a “speculative threat” does not constitute an Article III injury. Clapper, 568 U. S., at 416. Though it may sometimes be “a reasonable reac- tion” to “incu[r] certain costs” in advance of a final rule, those costs cannot establish standing when the final rule remains a “hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.” Ibid. Federal courts review final rules, not proposed rules—and certainly not antecedent internal di- rectives to propose a rule. If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the States, they may challenge that rule. III The remaining stay factors also favor relief. The Govern- ment is likely to suffer irreparable harm without a stay. The District Court’s breach of Article III interferes with the internal operations of the Executive Branch. See INS v. …