The official mandate of the United States Postal Service (USPS) is to "provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas" and to bind the nation together.
Inscribed on the former James A. Farley Post Office in New York City is the USPS‘s unofficial motto: “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds." Originating from the Greek historian Herodotus’s description of ancient Persian messengers, it is meant to signify the dedication of mail carriers.
However, in U.S. Postal Service v. Konan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Postal Service mail carriers may intentionally delay the completion of their assigned rounds without legal liability. As a result, prompt, reliable, and efficient service may not always be delivered.
The Check Was Not In The Mail
Nor was any other mail for Lebene Konan and the tenants of her properties. According to a legal complaint filed by Konan, certain offenses were not the result of negligence or incompetence but a conscious decision by USPS employees. Konan alleged that USPS mail carriers Raymond Rojas and Jason Drake began a harassment campaign in 2020 that included:
- Changing ownership records to suggest a white tenant was the owner instead of Konan, who is Black.
- Changing the locks on the post office box.
- Posting signs on her mailbox announcing her tenants would not receive packages.
- Imposing an ID policy that only applied to her.
- Intentionally withholding delivery because they did not like "that a Black person own[ed]" the properties and "lease[d] rooms . . . to white people."
An Alleged Miscarriage Of Mail
Konan’s path to the Supreme Court began by filing numerous administrative complaints. When those proved fruitless, she sued in federal district court, which dismissed her complaint pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act's (FTCA) postal exception, under which the United States retains sovereign immunity for all claims "arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter."
The District Court further held that the postal exception is not limited to a merely negligent failure to properly carry the mail. The 5th Circuit reversed, holding that the terms "loss," "miscarriage," and "negligent transmission" do not encompass the intentional act of not delivering the mail at all. In contrast, the 1st and 2nd Circuits have interpreted the postal exception to apply to suits even when they arise from harms caused by intentional misconduct.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split and in a decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, decided that the U.S. government retains sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the intentional nondelivery of mail because such conduct constitutes a "miscarriage" and "loss" of mail under the FTCA's postal exception. The high court found that the FTCA’s postal exception bars claims over the Postal Service’s intentional nondelivery of mail. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, joined.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, in which she argued that the majority opinion provided the U.S. Postal Service far more protection from lawsuits than Congress intended and that it shields intentional misconduct by postal employees. Justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined.
It’s Good to Be the King (or Queen)
The doctrine of sovereign immunity, derived from old English law, declares that the sovereign — the king or queen — could not be sued because they could do no wrong. In the U.S., sovereign immunity has come to mean that the federal, state, and, in some instances, local governments cannot be sued in their own courts without consent.
The federal government waived sovereign immunity for numerous types of tort claims when it passed the Federal Tort Claims Act, permitting plaintiffs injured by defendants’ wrongful acts to file a tort lawsuit against the United States to recover monetary damages and other relief.
Can’t the Federal Government Be Sued for Intentional Discrimination?
Yes, private individuals can sue the federal government for intentional discrimination and potentially receive equitable relief, including back pay, front pay, job reinstatement, and injunctive relief to stop discriminatory practices. Compensatory and punitive damages may also be available for intentional discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
However, here the majority held that Congress explicitly carved out broad liability for the postal service, including for intentional acts. The Supreme Court’s decision did not include any consideration of the merits of Konan’s case regarding discrimination.
The Now Not-So Big and Beautiful FTCA
When Congress enacted the FTCA in 1946, the term miscarriage of mail ordinarily included any failure of mail to properly arrive at its intended destination. The Konan decision has narrowed that lofty ideal in several ways:
- Limitation on Intentional Tort Claims: The decision restricts the ability of citizens to file tort claims against the Postal Service for deliberate, bad-faith acts by employees, narrowing the scope of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- Broadened Sovereign Immunity: The Konan decision broadens the FTCA's exceptions to suit, now covering both negligent and intentional acts that result in the failure of mail to arrive, while limiting a plaintiff’s choices of causes of action.
- Limitation on Monetary Damages: Plaintiffs cannot use the FTCA to sue the USPS for damages related to intentionally withheld or destroyed mail. Aggrieved individuals may now seek only injunctive and declaratory relief against the USPS for ongoing, illegal, or discriminatory mail practices.
Related Resources
- U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments in Boulder Climate Change Accountability Suit (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- New Software for SCOTUS to Detect Financial Conflicts for Justices (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- Federal Judge Rules Court, Not Justice Department, Will Search Reporter’s Seized Material (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
