Postal Service v. Konan
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Postal Service v. Konan and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Postal Service v. Konan.
The Supreme Court addressed whether the United States retains sovereign immunity for claims related to the intentional nondelivery of mail under the Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception. The Court vacated and remanded the Fifth Circuit's decision, which had held that intentional nondelivery was not covered by the postal exception. The Court's interpretation focused on the terms 'miscarriage' and 'loss' of mail, concluding they include intentional nondelivery.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Postal Service v. Konan.
The Court held that the United States retains sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the intentional nondelivery of mail under the FTCA’s postal exception.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Postal Service v. Konan. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why State Sovereign Immunity is relevant to Postal Service v. Konan
The case involves the application of the Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception, which pertains to the United States' sovereign immunity from certain types of claims.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The United States retains sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the intentional nondelivery of mail because 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.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Postal Service v. Konan that support the summary and concepts above.
The postal exception reflects Congress’s judgment that redress for 'harms' of 'the sort primarily identified with the Postal Service’s function of transporting mail throughout the United States' should not come from potentially burdensome tort suits.
Both 'miscarriage' and 'loss' of mail under the postal exception can occur as a result of the Postal Service’s intentional failure to deliver the mail.
The Court rejects Konan’s proposal to limit 'loss' to only 'destruction.'
