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 involving intentional nondelivery of mail under the Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception. The Court concluded that both 'miscarriage' and 'loss' of mail can result from intentional actions by the Postal Service. The decision vacated and remanded the Fifth Circuit's ruling, which had allowed such claims to proceed.
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 primarily deals with the United States retaining sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception.
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 United States retains sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the intentional nondelivery of mail.
The postal exception reflects Congress’s judgment that redress for 'harms' of 'the sort primarily identified with the Postal Service’s function' should not come from potentially burdensome tort suits.
The Court rejects Konan’s remaining arguments that her claims must not be barred by the postal exception.