USPS v. Konan Case: Attorney Frederick Liu Delivers Rebuttal on Mail Miscarriage and Loss

Understanding 'Miscarriage' in Mail Cases

• 💡 The ordinary meaning of 'miscarriage' in the context of mail is broad, encompassing any instance where the mail failed to arrive as intended.
• 🧠 The burden is on the respondent to justify a narrower reading of 'miscarriage' than historical definitions and precedent suggest.
• ⚠️ The idea that 'miscarriage' incorporates a distinction between negligence and willfulness is incorrect; courts historically used it for any mail non-arrival.

Consistent Usage of 'Loss' in Legal Waivers

• ⚖️ There is no reason to assign a different meaning to 'loss' in the postal exception compared to its use in the sovereign immunity waiver.
• 🧩 The presumption of consistent usage applies when language in one provision clarifies a term used in another, even if that clarifying language isn't present in the second provision.
• 🗣️ Congress's language should be adhered to; 'loss' functions perfectly well as a noun describing consequences like mail not arriving, arriving late, or arriving damaged.

Interpretation of the Postal Exception

• 🎯 The 'separate ambit' approach to interpreting the exception is misguided; Congress intended to cover loss or injury to mail.
• 📨 By including 'loss' and 'miscarriage' alongside 'negligent transmission,' Congress guarded against arguments that might narrow the exception's scope.
• 🚫 The inclusion of these terms aimed to prevent arguments that 'miscarriage' is limited to mail going to the wrong place, instances with preceding carriage attempts, or only intentional injuries.
• ✅ The presented position offers a coherent reading of the postal exception, avoiding the deluge of suits Congress sought to prevent.