HR-9905-119
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Sponsored by Daniel Goldman (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would officially rename the United States Postal Service facility at 114 John Street in New York, New York, as the "Jack Greenberg Post Office." It would require that all future references to this facility in federal laws, maps, regulations, and official documents use the new name. The bill makes no changes to postal operations, staffing, or funding.
Who benefits
The memory and legacy of Jack Greenberg, the civil rights attorney who succeeded Thurgood Marshall as director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and argued landmark desegregation cases. His family, former colleagues, and admirers would see his contributions formally recognized. The local community around 114 John Street in lower Manhattan may benefit from the historical acknowledgment. Supporters of civil rights history more broadly may view the designation as a meaningful public commemoration.
Who is hurt
No group is materially harmed by this bill. Businesses, residents, or delivery services that use the current address may need to update informal references, though the street address (114 John Street) does not change. There are no financial costs imposed on any private party.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Jack Greenberg spent decades fighting racial segregation in American courts, including as lead counsel in cases that dismantled Jim Crow-era laws, and that naming a federal facility in his honor is a fitting and lasting tribute to that public service. They contend that commemorative designations like this one carry no cost to taxpayers and enjoy broad bipartisan support, as evidenced by the bill's co-sponsorship by nearly the entire New York congressional delegation across both parties.
Opponents argue
Opponents could argue that Congress devotes limited floor time and legislative resources to commemorative naming bills while more pressing policy matters go unaddressed, and that the volume of such designations dilutes the significance of each individual honor. They might also contend that decisions about honoring specific individuals are better made at the local or state level, where communities most directly connected to the honoree can weigh in, rather than through a federal legislative process.