October Term 2025 · Docket 24-351
Does the Postal Exception Cover Mail Withheld by Postal Employees?
The Supreme Court must decide whether the Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception. Which preserves US immunity for claims arising from lost, miscarried, or negligently transmitted mail, bars a woman's suit alleging postal employees intentionally withheld her mail and returned it to sender.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Justice Thomas asked the government's lawyer what the Court should do if it finds itself in equipoise on the question.
Justice Kavanaugh noted Congress often drafts overlapping language and ordinary people communicate redundantly, preferring overlap over leaving a hole. He also questioned how courts can tell when drafters repeat themselves, citing competing legal authorities on the point.
the opposing side's lawyer argued the government's factual showing fell short, saying a week is probably not long enough under the relevant standard. And That this is not just allegations because it goes to jurisdiction.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 55-15 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 55-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 11-7 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 11-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 31-43 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 31-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 9-29 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-55 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-53 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-53
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Federal Tort Claims Act generally lets people sue the government for harm caused by federal employees. But it carves out a postal exception preserving US immunity for claims arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of mail. The case turns on how far that exception reaches.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 11-7 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 11-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 9-29 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 37-19
How the case got here
A the opposing side alleges her mail never reached its destination because postal employees intentionally withheld it and returned it to sender. The government argues the postal exception bars such claims. The case reached the Supreme Court after lower-court proceedings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 21-23
What each side wants
The Postal Service wants the Court to hold that the postal exception preserves its immunity, so the claim cannot proceed. It argues dictionary definitions and pre-FTCA cases show miscarriage broadly covered any time mail failed to arrive.
the opposing side wants her suit to proceed. Her lawyer argued no ordinary speaker would say the mail carrier lost her mail when employees intentionally withheld it. And Pointed to a differently worded statute about government employees causing loss.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 11-7 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 11-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 9-29 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 37-19
What each side says
The government's lawyer argued the exception covers intentional withholding because miscarriage had a broad ordinary meaning encompassing any failure of mail to arrive.
the opposing side's lawyer argued the government never disputed that ordinary speakers would not call intentionally withheld mail lost, and distinguished a separate statute worded differently.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 11-7 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 11-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 9-29 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 37-19
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor questioned whether, if miscarriage means a failure to carry mail properly, the words loss and negligent transmission become redundant and useless.
Justice Gorsuch questioned whether surplusage remains in the statute, particularly with the word miscarriage.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 55-15 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 55-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 31-43 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 31-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-55 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-53 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-53
Why it matters
The ruling will shape whether people harmed by intentional postal conduct can sue the government, and how courts read overlapping words in statutes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 11-7 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 11-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 9-29 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 37-19
What the Court decided
The Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception covers harm from mail that is intentionally not delivered, so the United States keeps sovereign immunity over such claims. Both miscarriage and loss of mail can result from a Postal Service's deliberate failure to deliver it.
The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 2, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 2, lines 1-1
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 4, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 4, lines 1-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 11-7 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 11-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 9-29 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 37-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 11-7 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 11-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 9-29 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 9-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 37-19 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 37-19
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.
- Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.
- Revision 4 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 5 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Removed direct-quotation marks from public paraphrases.
- Revision 6 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.