> Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for a majority of five conservative justices, said the federal law that generally shields the Postal Service from lawsuits over missing, lost and undelivered mail includes “the intentional nondelivery of mail.”
Sooooo the entire postal service could just decide to not deliver any mail at all and that's a-okay? How about stealing the contents of mail and keeping/selling them? How about opening mail and stealing valuable information and then not delivering it? How about deliberately not delivering mail ballots to/fro the voter (this is the real real this is happening, and destroying USPS)?
The ruling is strictly limited to whether a private citizen can sue the federal government for money damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). It does not legalize the intentional withholding, theft, or destruction of mail, all of which remain federal crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1703 and § 1709 and are subject to investigation and prosecution by the Postal Inspection Service. Additionally, the decision does not apply to constitutional challenges, which fall under different legal frameworks and can still be addressed through court injunctions or civil rights litigation (i.e., the right to vote or equal protection). Essentially, the Court held that the government is immune from being sued for cash in these specific civil instances, but it did not grant postal workers immunity from criminal law or constitutional oversight.
kccoder|6 days ago
Sooooo the entire postal service could just decide to not deliver any mail at all and that's a-okay? How about stealing the contents of mail and keeping/selling them? How about opening mail and stealing valuable information and then not delivering it? How about deliberately not delivering mail ballots to/fro the voter (this is the real real this is happening, and destroying USPS)?
pcaharrier|4 days ago
tencentshill|6 days ago