Supreme Court Bars Suits Against The Postal Service, Even For Intentional Failure To Deliver Mail

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday nan U.S. Postal Service is shielded from being sued moreover if its labor intentionally neglect to present nan mail.

In a 5-4 decision, nan tribunal said Congress successful 1946 had barred lawsuits “arising retired of nan loss, miscarriage, aliases negligent transmission of letters aliases postal matter,” and that includes message that is stolen aliases misdirected by postal employees.

Justice Clarence Thomas, penning for nan court, said nan rule broadly bars complaints involving mislaid aliases missing mail.

“A ‘miscarriage of mail’ includes nonaccomplishment of nan message to get astatine its intended destination, sloppy of nan carrier’s intent aliases wherever nan message goes instead,” he said.

The ruliing is simply a setback but not a last conclusion for Lebene Konan, a Texas existent property supplier who is Black. She had sued contending achromatic postal carriers refused to present her message to 2 houses wherever she rented rooms.

She did not unrecorded astatine either spot but said she stayed location “from clip to time.”

She first complained to nan station agency successful Euless, Texas, aft she learned nan message bearer had changed nan listed proprietor connected a cardinal postal container from Konan’s sanction to a tenant’s name.

After 2 years of frustration, she sued nan United States successful 2022 alleging nan Postal Service had intentionally and wrongly withheld her mail. She sought damages for affectional distress, a nonaccomplishment of rental income and for group discrimination.

Her declare of group bias was dismissed by a national judge and a U.S. appeals tribunal and did not fig successful nan Supreme Court’s decision.

However, nan 5th Circuit Court ruled she could spell guardant pinch her suit alleging she was a unfortunate of intentional misconduct connected nan portion of postal employees.

The Biden and Trump administrations urged nan tribunal to perceive nan lawsuit and to cull lawsuits against nan Postal Service based connected claims of intentional wrongdoing.

They said nan 5th Circuit’s ruling could “open nan floodgates of litigation.” They noted nan Postal Service delivers astir 113 cardinal pieces of message per twelvemonth and receives astir 335,000 complaints complete mislaid message and different matters.

“We clasp that nan postal objection covers suits against nan United States for nan intentional nondelivery of mail,” Thomas said. “We do not determine whether each of Konan’s claims are barred.”

Joining Thomas to limit lawsuits against nan Postal Service were Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said nan rule refers to a “loss” aliases “miscarriage” of nan mail, which suggests negligence.

“Today, nan tribunal holds that 1 objection — nan postal objection — prevents individuals from recovering for injuries based connected a postal employee’s intentional misconduct, including erstwhile an worker maliciously withholds their mail,” Sotomayor wrote.

Joining her were Justices Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson.