Why is Trump-appointed Neil Gorsuch siding with liberal Justices all of the sudden?
In a sharply divided 5–4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that the United States Postal Service (USPS) cannot be sued for damages — even when postal workers are accused of intentionally refusing to deliver mail.
For many Americans who value government accountability, the ruling raises serious concerns.
The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas and centers on the long-standing legal doctrine known as sovereign immunity — the principle that the federal government cannot be sued unless Congress clearly permits it.
What the Supreme Court Actually Decided
At the heart of the case was the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a 1946 law that allows Americans to sue the federal government in certain limited circumstances.
However, the law contains what is known as the “postal exception,” which protects the government from lawsuits arising out of the “loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission” of mail.
The question before the Court was simple but significant:
Does that protection apply only to mistakes — or does it also shield intentional misconduct?
The Supreme Court’s majority ruled that it covers both.
Justice Thomas explained that at the time Congress enacted the FTCA, the common understanding of the terms “loss” or “miscarriage” covered any instance in which mail does not reach its intended destination, whether the cause was unintentional or intentional.
In practical terms, this means Americans cannot sue the Postal Service for damages tied to intentionally undelivered mail.
How the Lawsuit Began
The case stemmed from a dispute involving a Texas landlord who alleged postal workers in Euless intentionally withheld and returned mail addressed to her rental properties.
She claimed the actions caused financial losses and emotional distress. After administrative complaints failed, she filed suit in federal court under state-level claims such as nuisance and interference with business relations.
A federal district court dismissed the lawsuit under the FTCA’s postal exception.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit revived the case, ruling that intentional nondelivery should not be protected.
Because other federal courts had reached different conclusions, the Supreme Court agreed to resolve the disagreement nationwide.
The high court ultimately sided with the federal government.
A Surprising Dissent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the dissenting opinion, arguing that Congress intended the postal exception to cover negligent mistakes — not deliberate misconduct.
What surprised many observers was that Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the Court’s three liberal justices in dissent.
For conservatives who have closely followed the Court’s direction in recent years, that alignment may raise important questions about judicial philosophy and statutory interpretation.
Why This Decision Matters to Everyday Americans
This ruling reinforces the limits of the federal government’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
While the FTCA allows certain lawsuits, it remains a narrow path — and this decision narrows it further when it comes to USPS-related disputes.
For seniors, small business owners, landlords, veterans, and families who rely on dependable mail service for:
- Prescription medications
- Social Security documents
- Tax forms
- Legal paperwork
- Business payments
— the issue of accountability carries real-world consequences.
Even allegations of intentional wrongdoing by federal employees may now fall outside the reach of civil damages claims.
What Happens Next?
The case returns to lower courts, though the Supreme Court did not decide whether every single claim in the lawsuit is completely barred.
Still, the central legal question has now been settled nationwide: the Postal Service is protected from damages claims involving intentional nondelivery of mail under the FTCA.
The Bigger Constitutional Question
This case highlights an ongoing constitutional tension:
How do we balance government accountability with the principle that the federal government enjoys broad legal protections?
For many Americans — particularly those who value limited government and constitutional clarity — that question remains unresolved.
Final Thoughts
Whether one views the ruling as a strict reading of statutory law or a troubling expansion of government immunity, one thing is certain:
The Supreme Court has once again reshaped the legal landscape in a way that directly impacts everyday Americans.
And for citizens who expect accountability from federal agencies, the debate is far from over.
