United States Postal Service, et al., Petitioners v. Lebene Konan

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the federal government cannot be sued when postal workers intentionally fail to deliver mail. The Court held that the law's 'postal exception' covers any failure of mail to reach its destination, whether it was an accident or a deliberate act.

This decision means that individuals who suffer losses because a postal worker intentionally interferes with their mail have no path to sue for damages in federal court. For example, business owners cannot hold the government liable even if a worker's actions were purposeful and harmful.

The case centers on sovereign immunity, which is the legal rule that the government cannot be sued without its own permission. By interpreting the 1946 Federal Tort Claims Act broadly, the Court reinforced that the government's permission to be sued is very limited regarding mail delivery.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion for a 5-4 Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent joined by Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson.

Majority

Thomas

Roberts

Alito

Kavanaugh

Barrett

Dissent

Sotomayor

Kagan

Gorsuch

Jackson

“A claim 'arises out of' a loss or miscarriage of mail whether a worker dropped the letter in a puddle or deliberately threw it away.”

“The ordinary meanings of 'loss' and 'miscarriage' both connote inadvertence rather than deliberate wrongdoing.”

The Postal Service is immune from lawsuits over mail that is lost or not delivered, even if the postal worker did it on purpose.

Lower courts will now apply this ruling to dismiss similar lawsuits against the United States Postal Service. Affected parties may have to rely on internal agency complaints or administrative processes rather than the court system to address mail delivery disputes.

The Court used the 'original public meaning' rule, which looks at what words meant when Congress first passed the law. In 1946, dictionaries defined 'miscarriage' as any failure of mail to arrive, regardless of whether it was an accident or on purpose.

Victims like Lebene Konan, who alleged her mail was withheld intentionally, can no longer use the Federal Tort Claims Act to seek money from the government. This creates a high bar for holding the Postal Service accountable in court for the actions of its workers.

Justice Thomas argued that 'loss' and 'miscarriage' describe the result—the mail not arriving—not the worker's intent. Justice Sotomayor argued that those words usually imply an accident and that Congress did not intend to protect intentional misconduct.

No, the majority ruled that 'negligent' only modifies the word 'transmission' because of basic grammar rules. This means 'loss' and 'miscarriage' remain broad categories that do not require a showing of carelessness to trigger government immunity.

While this ruling blocks lawsuits for damages, people can still file administrative complaints with the Postal Service or its Inspector General. However, they will not be able to win a court judgment for financial losses caused by the intentional interference.