The question
Whether the Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception, which preserves federal sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of mail, bars claims arising from the Postal Service's intentional failure to deliver mail.
Postal Service v. Konan
What the Court decided
Reversed. The United States keeps its sovereign immunity from tort claims arising out of the intentional nondelivery of mail. The Court held that both "miscarriage" and "loss" of mail under the FTCA's postal exception can occur when the Postal Service intentionally fails to deliver mail, reading those 1946 statutory terms by their ordinary meaning. Konan's state-law tort claims that Postal Service employees intentionally withheld her mail therefore fall within the exception and cannot proceed.
How the justices split
5-4The Court's opinion
Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett
The postal exception reflects Congress's judgment that redress for harms tied to the Postal Service's function of transporting mail should not come from tort suits. Read by their ordinary 1946 meanings, both 'miscarriage' and 'loss' of mail reach intentional conduct. 'Miscarriage' covered any failure of mail to arrive at its intended destination and was used for intentional misconduct like stolen or burned mail, with no dictionary limiting it to negligence or to misdelivery. 'Loss' meant a deprivation of mail regardless of how it came about, including when someone intentionally keeps the mail. Because Konan alleged the Postal Service converted mail she was entitled to possess, her claims arise out of the loss and miscarriage of mail and are barred.
Dissenting
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Gorsuch, Jackson
The dissent would hold that the postal exception does not preserve immunity for the intentional nondelivery of mail alleged here. The syllabus does not set out the dissent's full reasoning.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that the United States retains sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the intentional nondelivery of mail.
Source: syllabus, Held
Both 'miscarriage' and 'loss' of mail under the FTCA's postal exception can occur as a result of the Postal Service's intentional failure to deliver the mail.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court interpreted the statutory terms by their ordinary meanings when Congress enacted the FTCA in 1946, finding 'miscarriage' covered any failure of mail to reach its intended destination and 'loss' meant a deprivation of mail regardless of how it was brought about.
Source: syllabus, Held
Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson.
Source: syllabus, lineup