Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a weekly newsletter that surfaces under-the-radar stories about what Trump is doing to the law—and how the law is pushing back.

The Supreme Court handed down an alarming decision on Tuesday prohibiting Americans from suing the Postal Service for damages in federal court when carriers intentionally destroy or refuse to deliver their mail. Justice Clarence Thomas’ 5–4 decision in USPS v. Konan is bad enough on its own—a distortion of the law that will deprive individuals of their rightful remedy when postal workers withhold mail on purpose. But it is even more disturbing in light of the upcoming midterms, when millions of Americans will cast their ballots by mail. Konan effectively repeals a major deterrent against postal workers who might try to manipulate the election by targeting mail ballots, a threat that’s not hypothetical. In a moment when American democracy depends on the integrity of mail delivery, the Supreme Court has handed the Postal Service new immunity in cases of deliberate sabotage.

Konan’s facts illustrate exactly why Congress authorized civil suits against postal workers’ intentional misconduct in the first place. For two years, USPS did not deliver mail addressed to tenants of Lebene Konan, a landlord in Euless, Texas. Konan alleges that local carriers objected to the fact that she, a Black woman, leased rooms to white people. So she sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the U.S. government’s immunity from certain lawsuits. The FTCA allows certain actions against USPS while forbidding others. As relevant here, the statute prohibits lawsuits against the Postal Service “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.”

John Roberts’ Rebuke of Trump’s Tariffs Is Withering, Confident, and Genuinely Encouraging

Congress enacted this bar to prevent people from demanding damages in federal court every time their mail was inadvertently delayed. Konan argued that it shields only negligent conduct—like accidentally leaving a letter on the truck—and does not encompass intentional theft or destruction of the mail. A cross-ideological panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed. It reasoned that........

© Slate