Lebene Konan sued the Euless, Texas post office for what she claimed was their intentional failure to deliver mail to rental property she owned. The Supreme Court just said she didn’t have the right to sue.
Mail Delivery
This case started with a beef between an individual and their local post office.
Respondent Lebene Konan and the local post office in Euless, Texas, had an extended dispute concerning mail delivery to two rental properties owned by Konan.
USPS v. Konan
The dispute basically came down to who owned the property and who was eligible to receive mail at the two addresses owned by Ms. Konan. According to Ms. Konan, how the USPS handled the complaint led to serious consequences for her and her tenants.
As a result, Konan and her tenants did not receive important mail. Konan resorted to private carriers. The disruptions in mail service resulted in the loss of tenants and made it more difficult for Konan to attract new tenants. The carrier also taped a red notice inside the mailbox stating that mail addressed to some, but not all, of the Saratoga residents could be delivered to the box. In 2021, postal workers also allegedly stopped delivering mail to the Trenton house after discovering that Konan owned it as well.
USPS v. Konan
Ms. Konan did what most people would do. She filed a complaint with the Postal Service. However, that did not get her the results she wanted.
After administrative complaints proved unsuccessful, Konan sued the United States in federal court, bringing various state-law tort claims alleging that the United States Postal Service intentionally and wrongfully withheld her mail.
USPS v. Konan
As with most federal lawsuits, the first stop was a District Court.
The District Court dismissed Konan’s complaint pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act’s 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,” 28 U. S. C. §2680(b).
USPS v. Konan
The District Court claimed the United States has sovereign immunity. I’ll cover that concept more in a later section. The court also noted that Congress provided that the ability to sue did not include cases involving the nondelivery of mail.
The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall not apply to-
…
(b) Any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.
28 USC §2680(b)
Don’t you love it when government writes laws excepting it from its own negligence? The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.
The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the terms “loss,” “miscarriage,” and “negligent transmission” do not encompass the intentional act of not delivering the mail at all.
USPS v. Konan
The Fifth Circuit apparently thinks negligent acts are not intentional. However, the Fifth Circuit disagreed with the First and Second Circuits, which led to the Supreme Court case.
In contrast, the First and Second Circuits have interpreted the postal exception to apply to suits even when they arise from harms caused by intentional misconduct. The Court granted certiorari to resolve the split.
USPS v. Konan
So, how did the Supreme Court view this case?
Held: 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.
USPS v. Konan
Well, there are a couple of constitutional issues with this decision.
Sovereign Immunity
The first problem with the decision is the idea of federal sovereign immunity. As Justice Thomas wrote in the opinion.
Held: The United States retains sovereign immunity …
USPS v. Konan
But in order to retain sovereign immunity, the United States must have it in the first place. As The Free Legal Dictionary states:
In the United States the sovereignty resides in the body of the people.
Sovereign – The Free Legal Dictionary
And, since the Constitution does not delegate to the United States sovereign immunity, that power remains with We the People. So without sovereign immunity, what claim does the United States have that they are immune from suit?
First Amendment
As I pointed out before, the District and Supreme Courts pointed not only to the myth of sovereign immunity but to federal law. Specifically 28 USC §2680(b).
The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall not apply to-
…
(b) Any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.
28 USC §2680(b)
This section is part of the chapter on jurisdictions and venue. And §1346(b) states.
(1) Subject to the provisions of chapter 171 of this title, the district courts, together with the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, accruing on and after January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.
28 USC §1346(b)
So Congress says we can sue in federal court for loss, injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act of a federal employee. That is, except for the negligent transmission of postal matter (§2680(b)). But that violates the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
Which is exactly what §2680(b) claims to do: Abridge your right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In this case, Ms. Kenon has petitioned the government for a redress of a grievance she has with government employees, specifically the actions of postal employees. But two of the three federal courts claim that a law of the United States, that was not made pursuant to the Constitution, supersedes the plain language of supreme law of the land.
Conclusion
How does that make you feel? The fact that, according to the Supreme Court, not only the postal service, but the federal government itself is immune from the consequences of their actions? And just where does the United States get such immunity? Not from the Constitution, but from a court, a group of justices in black robes. Doesn’t that sound like grievance number 15 of the Declaration of Independence?
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States
Declaration of Independence
After all, the Preamble to the Constitution states:
We the People of the United States,… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
U.S. Constitution – Preamble
In other words, we created the federal government, including the Supreme Court. We gave this government limited and enumerated powers. We confirmed the limitation of the federal government in the Tenth Amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
U.S. Constitution – Amendment X
Where does the Supreme Court, where does Justice Thomas, get the gall to claim that the federal government is sovereign over its creator? If We the People ordained and established the Constitution that created the federal government, why do we cower under its tyranny? Since the states are the ones that ratified the Constitution that created the federal government, why are they letting their creation run amok? Could it be that the sacred fire of liberty George Washington talked about has gone out?
And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.
George Washington’s First Inaugural Address
