argument next in case 24351 United States Postal Service versus Conan.

Mr. Liu.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the postal exception to the Federal Tort

Claims Act preserves the United States immunity for any claim arising out of the loss,

miscarriage, or negligent transmission of mail.

Respondent alleges that her mail didn't reach its destination because postal employees

intentionally withheld the mail and returned it to send her.

That allegation falls within the postal exception for two reasons.

First, respondent alleges a miscarriage of mail. When Congress enacted the FTCA in

1946, miscarriage had a specific meaning in the male context. It meant the failure of something

sent to arrive or to be carried properly. Indeed, pre-FTCA decisions used miscarriage to describe

the facts alleged here,

mail that wasn't delivered because it was intentionally returned to send her.

Second, the respondent alleges the loss of mail.

Her own complaint uses the word loss, and she doesn't dispute that she alleges a loss

for purposes of the FTCA's sovereign immunity waiver.

There's no reason to give loss a different meaning in the postal exception.

In fact, the presumption of consistent usage, contemporaneous dictionaries, and pre-FTCA decisions,

all support reading loss to have the same meaning.

Respondent's claims therefore satisfy two out of the Postal Exception's three prongs,

which is no surprise given that loss and miscarriage were understood to be overlapping terms

when Congress enacted the FTCA.

...