Oral Argument Preview | Postal Service v. Konan | Dictionary Duel Over "Loss," "Miscarriage," and Government Liability

Postal Service v. Konan | Case No. 24-351 | Oral Argument Date: 10/8/25 | Docket Link: Here Episode Overview This episode examines United States Postal Service v. Lebene Konan , a Supreme Court case that asks whether the federal government has immunity when postal employees intentionally refuse to deliver mail as part of a campaign of racial harassment. The case centers on the interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act's "postal exception" and whether terms like "loss" and "miscarriage" cover intentional wrongdoing or only negligent acts. Episode Roadmap Opening: A Deceptively Simple Question Can you sue the federal government when postal workers intentionally withhold your mail? The answer hinges on the Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception Core tension between remedy for wrongs vs. government immunity Legal Framework: The Federal Tort Claims Act 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b): Exception for claims arising from "loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission" of mail Key interpretive battle: Does "negligent" modify only "transmission" or all three terms? Government argues broad immunity; plaintiff argues narrow exception The Facts: Alleged Racial Harassment Campaign Lebene Konan: Black realtor and landlady in Euless, Texas Two-year campaign by USPS employees Raymond Rojas and Jason Drake Allegations: Changed postal records, changed mailbox locks, refused mail delivery Over 50 administrative complaints filed; Inspector General investigation ordered delivery Procedural Journey District court: Dismissed under postal exception Fifth Circuit: Reversed, held "loss" and "miscarriage" imply unintentional acts Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve circuit split Government's Arguments "Miscarriage" = broad failure to arrive (Webster's 1940s definition) "Loss" = deprivation, regardless of intent Structural argument: FTCA uses "loss" to cover intentional acts elsewhere Policy concern: Flood of litigation if intent matters Konan's Counter-Arguments "Miscarriage" = mail mistakenly delivered to wrong place "Loss" = destruction or misplacement, both inherently accidental Statutory structure shows Congress concerned only with negligence "Negligent transmission" proves Congress knew how to limit scope when intended Battle of the Dictionaries Government relies on neutral 1940s definitions from Webster's Second Konan cites specific legal definitions and Oxford English Dictionary Competing interpretations of what "loss" and "miscarriage" historically meant Looking Ahead to Oral Arguments How will Justices react to competing dictionary definitions? Will practical consequences (floodgates) persuade the Court? Strange incentive structure if government immune for intentional but not negligent acts Referenced Cases Dolan v. USPS | 546 U.S. 481 (2006) | Docket Link Question Presented: Interpretation of FTCA postal exception terms Overview: Supreme Court precedent that both parties cite for their competing interpretations of "miscarriage" in the postal exception context. Key Legal Concepts Explained Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): Law allowing lawsuits against the United States for employee torts Sovereign Immunity: Government's general protection from lawsuits Statutory Interpretation: Battle between textualist approaches using period dictionaries Presumption of Consistent Usage: Principle that same word should mean same thing throughout statute Stakes and Implications If Government Wins: Strong immunity shield for Postal Service regardless of employee intent Potential closure of courthouse doors for wide range of intentional misconduct Confirmation that postal exception creates hard barrier to liability If Konan Wins: FTCA exceptions have limits; immunity doesn't protect intentional torts "Negligent" in statute colors interpretation of related terms Opens door for relief against intentional postal employee misconduct Broader Significance: Masterclass in statutory interpretation and use of historical dictionaries Tension between providing remedy for wrongs vs. protecting essential government services Question of whether immunity should vary based on employee intent