Share and Follow
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the Postal Service is shielded from lawsuits seeking damages for intentionally not delivering mail. This decision came with a narrow 5-4 vote, announced on Tuesday.
Justice Clarence Thomas penned the majority opinion, explaining that the doctrine of sovereign immunity protects the government from such claims related to undelivered mail.
“The U.S. holds sovereign immunity and cannot be subjected to lawsuits without its consent,” stated Justice Thomas. He referenced the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which upholds “sovereign immunity for a broad spectrum of mail-related claims.”
Thomas further elaborated, “The FTCA’s postal exception maintains sovereign immunity for all claims stemming from the loss, miscarriage, or negligent handling of letters or postal items.” He added, “The issue at hand is whether this exception covers situations where postal workers intentionally do not deliver mail. Our ruling confirms that it does.”
In related news, former President Trump remarked that a Supreme Court ruling against birthright citizenship would play into the hands of China.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion released Tuesday, ruling the U.S. Postal Service is immune from lawsuits for undelivered mail for any reason, including mail intentionally not delivered. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
The case, U.S. Postal Service v. Konan, stemmed from a dispute between Texas landlord Lebene Konan and her local post office. Konan alleged that postal workers in Euless, Texas, intentionally withheld and returned mail addressed to her and her tenants at two rental properties she owned, causing financial harm and emotional distress.
After her administrative complaints failed, Konan sued the United States in federal court, asserting state law claims including nuisance, tortious interference and conversion. A federal district court dismissed her claims, citing the FTCA’s postal exception, which preserves immunity for “any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit revived the lawsuit, ruling the exception did not apply to intentional acts of nondelivery. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve a split among federal appeals courts.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote Tuesday’s dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in U.S. Post Service v. Konan. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Reversing the Fifth Circuit, the high court held that the ordinary meaning of “loss” and “miscarriage” at the time Congress enacted the FTCA in 1946 encompassed mail that fails to arrive at its destination, regardless of whether the failure was negligent or intentional.
“A ‘miscarriage of mail’ includes failure of the mail to arrive at its intended destination, regardless of the carrier’s intent or where the mail goes instead,” Thomas wrote.
The decision vacates the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and sends the case back for further proceedings, though the justices did not decide whether all of Konan’s claims are barred.
“We hold that the postal exception covers suits against the United States for the intentional nondelivery of mail,” Thomas concluded. “We do not decide whether all of Konan’s claims are barred by the postal exception, or which arguments Konan adequately preserved.
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, appointed by President Donald Trump in his first administration, joined the three liberal justices in the dissenting opinion Tuesday. (APÂ )
Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing that the postal exception was meant to cover negligent mistakes, not intentional misconduct.
“Today, the majority concludes that the postal exception captures, and therefore protects, the intentional nondelivery of mail, even when that nondelivery was driven by malicious reasons,” she dissented.
Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the three liberal justices – Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – in the dissent.
The ruling underscores the limits of the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity and narrows the circumstances in which individuals can seek damages for mail-related harms, even when they allege deliberate wrongdoing by postal employees.
Related Article
