Respondent Lebene Konan, a landlord in Euless, Texas, alleged that a United States Postal Service employee intentionally withheld her mail and interfered with its delivery to her rental properties. Konan claimed the employee changed the listed owner on the mailboxes and locked the tenant out without her consent, causing her to lose rental income and suffer emotional distress. After administrative complaints failed, Konan sued the United States in federal court under state law for nuisance, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court dismissed the case, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception barred the claims because they arose from the nondelivery of mail. The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the terms 'loss' and 'miscarriage' in the statute did not cover intentional acts of withholding mail. This case reached the Supreme Court to resolve a conflict with the First and Second Circuits, which had previously held that the exception applies even when the nondelivery is intentional.
Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, held that the United States retains sovereign immunity for claims arising from the intentional nondelivery of mail under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Court began by interpreting the statutory terms 'loss' and 'miscarriage' according to their ordinary meanings at the time Congress enacted the FTCA in 1946. The Court found that 'miscarriage' of mail ordinarily included any failure of mail to properly arrive at its intended destination, regardless of whether the failure was caused by negligence or intentional misconduct. Dictionaries from the era confirmed that 'miscarriage' applied when mail was stolen, burned, or simply failed to arrive. Similarly, the Court determined that 'loss' meant a deprivation of mail, which could result from another person intentionally keeping the property. The Court rejected Konan's argument that 'loss' was limited to inadvertent losses or destruction, noting that ordinary speakers commonly described mail theft as a 'loss.' The Court also addressed Konan's argument that the qualifier 'negligent' in 'negligent transmission' implied that 'loss' and 'miscarriage' were limited to negligent acts. The Court explained that Congress intentionally limited 'negligent' to 'transmission' to exclude claims where nothing went wrong with the transport, but this did not narrow the scope of 'loss' or 'miscarriage.' Finally, the Court rejected the argument that interpreting the terms broadly created surplusage, noting that the terms often overlap in ordinary usage and that Congress likely used broad, overlapping language to keep mail delivery complaints out of court.
The decision requires the dismissal of Konan's state-law tort claims against the United States Postal Service, as they are barred by sovereign immunity. The case is remanded to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. The ruling establishes that the postal exception covers intentional nondelivery, aligning the Fifth Circuit with the First and Second Circuits. While the Court did not decide whether all of Konan's specific claims are barred or which arguments were preserved, the holding limits the ability of plaintiffs to sue the federal government for intentional mail withholding under the FTCA. The decision leaves open questions regarding the preservation of other arguments and whether specific claims might be barred on grounds other than the postal exception.