(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2005 1
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
DOLAN v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04–848. Argued November 7, 2005—Decided February 22, 2006
Under the Postal Reorganization Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA) applies to “tort claims arising out of [Postal Service] activi-
ties.” 39 U. S. C. §409(c). The FTCA, in turn, waives sovereign im-
munity in certain cases involving negligence committed by federal
employees in the course of their employment, 28 U. S. C. §1346(b)(1),
making the United States liable “in the same manner and to the
same extent as a private individual under like circumstances,” §2674.
However, the sovereign immunity bar remains as to, inter alia, “[a]ny
claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of
letters or postal matter.” §2680(b). Consequently, the United States
may be liable if postal workers commit torts under local law, but not
for claims defined by the exception. Petitioner Dolan filed an FTCA
suit against the Postal Service for injuries she suffered when she
tripped and fell over mail left on her porch by postal employees. The
District Court dismissed the suit, and the Third Circuit affirmed,
both concluding that, although the FTCA generally waives sovereign
immunity as to federal employees’ torts, Dolan’s claims were barred
by §2680(b)’s exception.
Held: Because the postal exception is inapplicable in this case, Dolan’s
claim may go forward. This Court assumes that under the applicable
state law a person injured by tripping over a package or bundle neg-
ligently left by a private party would have a cause of action for dam-
ages. The question is whether §2860(b)’s exception preserves sover-
eign immunity in such a case. Considered in isolation, “negligent
transmission” could embrace a wide range of acts. However, inter-
pretation of a word or phrase depends upon reading the whole statu-
tory text, considering the statute’s purpose and context. Here, both
context and precedent require reading the phrase so that it does not
2 DOLAN v. POSTAL SERVICE
Syllabus
go beyond negligence causing mail to be lost or to arrive late, in dam-
aged condition, or at the wrong address. Starting with context, “neg-
ligent transmission” follows the terms “loss” and “miscarriage,” which
limit the reach of transmission. Mail is “lost” if it is destroyed or
misplaced and “miscarried” if it goes to the wrong address. Since
both terms refer to failings in the postal obligation to deliver mail in
a timely manner to the right address, it would be odd if “negligent
transmission” swept far more broadly to include injuries caused by
postal employees but involving neither failure to transmit mail nor
damage to its contents. This interpretation is supported by Kosak v.
United States, 465 U. S. 848, where this Court noted that one of the
FTCA’s purposes was to waive the Government’s immunity from li-
ability for injuries resulting from auto accidents involving postal
trucks delivering—and thus “transmitting”—the mail. Nothing in
the statutory text supports a distinction between negligent driving,
which the Government claims relates only circumstantially to the
mail, and Dolan’s accident, which was caused by the mail itself. In
both cases the postal employee acts negligently while transmitting
mail. In addition, focusing on whether the mail itself caused the in-
jury would yield anomalies, perhaps making liability turn on, e.g.,
whether a mail sack was empty or full. It is more likely that Con-
gress intended to retain immunity only for injuries arising because
mail either fails to arrive or arrives late, in damaged condition, or at
the wrong address, since such harms are primarily identified with
the Postal Service’s function of transporting mail. The Government
claims that, given the Postal Service’s vast operations, Congress
must have intended to insulate delivery-related torts from liability,
but §2680(b)’s specificity indicates otherwise. Had Congress intended
to preserve immunity for all delivery-related torts, it could have used
sweeping language similar to that used in other FTCA exceptions,
e.g., §2860(i). Furthermore, losses of the type for which immunity is
retained under §2680(b) are at least to some degree avoidable or
compensable through postal registration and insurance. The Gov-
ernment raises the specter of frivolous slip-and-fall claims inundating
the Postal Service, but that is a risk shared by any business making
home deliveries. Finally, the general rule that a sovereign immunity
waiver “will be strictly construed . . . in favor of the sovereign,” Lane
v. Peña, 518 U. S. 187, 192, is “unhelpful” in the FTCA context,
where “unduly generous interpretations of the exceptions run the
risk of defeating” the central purpose of the statute, Kosak, supra, at
853, n. 9, which “waives the Government’s immunity from suit in
sweeping language,” United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U. S. 543,
547. Pp. 4–11.
377 F. 3d 285, reversed and remanded.
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 3
Syllabus
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined.
THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., took no part in the
consideration or decision of the case.
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 1
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 04–848
_________________
BARBARA DOLAN, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES
POSTAL SERVICE ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
[February 22, 2006]
JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
Each day, according to the Government’s submissions
here, the United States Postal Service delivers some 660
million pieces of mail to as many as 142 million delivery
points. This case involves one such delivery point—
petitioner Barbara Dolan’s porch—where mail left by
postal employees allegedly caused her to trip and fall.
Claiming injuries as a result, Dolan filed a claim for ad-
ministrative relief from the Postal Service. When her
claim was denied, she and her husband (whose claim for
loss of consortium the Dolans later conceded was barred
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies) filed suit
in the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Pennsylvania, asserting that the Postal Service’s
negligent placement of mail at their home subjected the
Government to liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA), 28 U. S. C. §§1346(b)(1), 2674. The District Court
dismissed Dolan’s suit, and the Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit affirmed, 377 F. 3d 285 (2004). Both courts
concluded that, although the FTCA generally waives
sovereign immunity as to federal employees’ torts, Dolan’s
2 DOLAN v. POSTAL SERVICE
Opinion of the Court
claims were barred by an exception to that waiver, 28
U. S. C. §2680(b). We disagree and hold that Dolan’s suit
may proceed.
I
Under the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U. S. C. §101 et
seq., the Postal Service is “an independent establishment
of the executive branch of the Government of the United
States,” §201. Holding a monopoly over carriage of letters,
the Postal Service has “significant governmental powers,”
including the power of eminent domain, the authority to
make searches and seizures in the enforcement of laws
protecting the mails, the authority to promulgate postal
regulations, and, subject to the Secretary of State’s super-
vision, the power to enter international postal agreements.
See Postal Service v. Flamingo Industries (USA) Ltd., 540
U. S. 736, 741 (2004) (discussing 39 U. S. C. §§101, 401, 407,
601–606). Consistent with this status, the Postal Service
enjoys federal sovereign immunity absent a waiver. See
ibid.; cf. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U. S. 471, 475 (1994) (“Absent a
waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Govern-
ment and its agencies from suit”).
Although the Postal Reorganization Act generally
“waives the immunity of the Postal Service from suit by
giving it the power ‘to sue and be sued in its official
name,’ ” Flamingo Industries, supra, at 741 (quoting 39
U. S. C. §401(1)), the statute also provides that the FTCA
“shall apply to tort claims arising out of activities of the
Postal Service,” §409(c).
The FTCA, in turn, waives sovereign immunity in two
different sections of the United States Code. The first
confers federal-court jurisdiction in a defined category of
cases involving negligence committed by federal employees
in the course of their employment. This jurisdictional
grant covers:
“claims against the United States, for money dam-
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 3
Opinion of the Court
ages, accruing on and after January 1, 1945, for injury
or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused
by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any
employee of the Government while acting within the
scope of his office or employment, under circum-
stances where the United States, if a private person,
would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the
law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”
28 U. S. C. §1346(b)(1).
As to claims falling within this jurisdictional grant, the
FTCA, in a second provision, makes the United States liable
“in the same manner and to the same extent as a private
individual under like circumstances,” though not “for
interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages.”
§2674; see generally United States v. Olson, 546 U. S. ___ ,
___ (2005) (slip op., at 1).
The FTCA qualifies its waiver of sovereign immunity for
certain categories of claims (13 in all). If one of the excep-
tions applies, the bar of sovereign immunity remains. The
13 categories of exempted claims are set forth in 28
U. S. C. §2680, and the relevant subsection for our pur-
poses, pertaining to postal operations, is §2680(b). It
states:
“The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of
this title shall not apply to . . . [a]ny claim arising out
of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of
letters or postal matter.”
As a consequence, the United States may be liable if postal
employees commit torts under local law, but not for claims
defined by this exception.
This was the provision relied upon by the District Court
and Court of Appeals to dismiss Dolan’s suit. The Court of
Appeals’ decision created a conflict with a decision of the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See Raila v.
United States, 355 F. 3d 118, 121 (CA2 2004). We granted
4 DOLAN v. POSTAL SERVICE
Opinion of the Court
certiorari. 544 U. S. ___ (2005).
II
We assume that under the applicable state law a person
injured by tripping over a package or bundle of papers
negligently left on the porch of a residence by a private
party would have a cause of action for damages. See 28
U. S. C. §§1346(b)(1), 2674. The question is whether,
when mail left by the Postal Service causes the slip and
fall, the §2680(b) exception for “loss, miscarriage, or negli-
gent transmission of letters or postal matter” preserves
sovereign immunity despite the FTCA’s more general
statements of waiver.
If considered in isolation, the phrase “negligent trans-
mission” could embrace a wide range of negligent acts
committed by the Postal Service in the course of delivering
mail, including creation of slip-and-fall hazards from
leaving packets and parcels on the porch of a residence.
After all, in ordinary meaning and usage, transmission of
the mail is not complete until it arrives at the destination.
See, e.g., Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
2429 (1971) (defining “transmission” as “an act, process, or
instance of transmitting” and “transmit” as “to cause to go
or be conveyed to another person or place”). In large part
this inference—transmission includes delivery—led the
District Court and Court of Appeals to rule for the Gov-
ernment. See 377 F. 3d, at 288; App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a–
6a. The definition of words in isolation, however, is not
necessarily controlling in statutory construction. A word
in a statute may or may not extend to the outer limits of
its definitional possibilities. Interpretation of a word or
phrase depends upon reading the whole statutory text,
considering the purpose and context of the statute, and
consulting any precedents or authorities that inform the
analysis. Here, we conclude both context and precedent
require a narrower reading, so that “negligent transmis-
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 5
Opinion of the Court
sion” does not go beyond negligence causing mail to be lost
or to arrive late, in damaged condition, or at the wrong
address. See Raila, supra, at 121 (holding the postal
exception covers “damages and delay of the postal mate-
rial itself and consequential damages therefrom”). The
phrase does not comprehend all negligence occurring in
the course of mail delivery.
Starting with context, the words “negligent transmis-
sion” in §2680(b) follow two other terms, “loss” and “mis-
carriage.” Those terms, we think, limit the reach of
“transmission.” “[A] word is known by the company it
keeps”—a rule that “is often wisely applied where a word
is capable of many meanings in order to avoid the giving of
unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress.” Jarecki v.
G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U. S. 303, 307 (1961); see also Dole
v. Steelworkers, 494 U. S. 26, 36 (1990) (“[W]ords grouped in
a list should be given related meaning” (internal quotation
marks omitted)). Here, as both parties acknowledge, mail
is “lost” if it is destroyed or misplaced and “miscarried” if
it goes to the wrong address. Since both those terms refer
to failings in the postal obligation to deliver mail in a
timely manner to the right address, it would be odd if
“negligent transmission” swept far more broadly to include
injuries like those alleged here—injuries that happen to be
caused by postal employees but involve neither failure to
transmit mail nor damage to its contents.
Our interpretation would be less secure were it not for a
precedent we deem to have decisive weight here. We refer
to Kosak v. United States, 465 U. S. 848 (1984). In Kosak,
an art collector alleged in an FTCA suit that artworks he
owned were damaged when the United States Customs
Service seized and detained them. Id., at 849–850. The
question was whether the Government retained immunity
based on §2680(c), a provision that has since been
amended but at the time covered:
6 DOLAN v. POSTAL SERVICE
Opinion of the Court
“[a]ny claim arising in respect of the assessment or
collection of any tax or customs duty, or the detention
of any goods or merchandise by any officer of customs
or excise or any other law-enforcement officer.” Id., at
852, n. 6 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In its opinion concluding the exception did apply and thus
that the United States retained sovereign immunity, the
Court gave specific consideration to the postal exception.
In a part of the opinion central to its holding, the Court
contrasted what it called the “generality of §2680(c)” with
the “specificity of §2680(b),” id., at 855. The Court ob-
served:
“One of the principal purposes of the Federal Tort
Claims Act was to waive the Government’s immunity
from liability for injuries resulting from auto acci-
dents in which employees of the Postal System were
at fault. In order to ensure that §2680(b), which gov-
erns torts committed by mailmen, did not have the ef-
fect of barring precisely the sort of suit that Congress
was most concerned to authorize, the draftsmen of the
provision carefully delineated the types of misconduct
for which the Government was not assuming financial
responsibility—namely, ‘the loss, miscarriage, or neg-
ligent transmission of letters or postal matter’—
thereby excluding, by implication, negligent handling
of motor vehicles.” Ibid.
In the present case neither party suggests Kosak’s con-
clusion regarding negligent operation of postal motor
vehicles should be ignored as dictum. In light of Kosak’s
discussion, we cannot interpret the phrase “negligent
transmission” in §2680(b) to cover all negligence in the
course of mail delivery. Although postal trucks may well
be delivering—and thus transmitting—mail when they
collide with other vehicles, Kosak indicates the United
States, nonetheless, retains no immunity.
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 7
Opinion of the Court
Seeking to distinguish postal auto accidents from Do-
lan’s fall, the Government argues that negligent driving
relates only circumstantially to the mail, whereas Dolan’s
accident was caused by the mail itself. Nothing in the
statutory text supports this distinction. Quite the con-
trary, if placing mail so as to create a slip-and-fall risk
constitutes “negligent transmission,” the same should be
true of driving postal trucks in a manner that endangers
others on the road. In both cases the postal employee acts
negligently while transmitting mail. In addition, as the
Second Circuit recognized and as the Government ac-
knowledged at oral argument, focusing on whether the
mail itself caused the injury would yield anomalies, per-
haps making liability turn on whether a mail sack causing
a slip-and-fall was empty or full, or whether a pedestrian
sideswiped by a passing truck was hit by the side-view
mirror or a dangling parcel. See Raila, 355 F. 3d, at 122–
123.
We think it more likely that Congress intended to retain
immunity, as a general rule, only for injuries arising,
directly or consequentially, because mail either fails to
arrive at all or arrives late, in damaged condition, or at
the wrong address. Illustrative instances of the excep-
tion’s operation, then, would be personal or financial
harms arising from nondelivery or late delivery of sensi-
tive materials or information (e.g., medicines or a mort-
gage foreclosure notice) or from negligent handling of a
mailed parcel (e.g., shattering of shipped china). Such
harms, after all, are the sort primarily identified with the
Postal Service’s function of transporting mail throughout
the United States.
Resisting this conclusion, the Government emphasizes
the Postal Service’s vast operations—the 660 million daily
mailings and 142 million delivery points mentioned at the
outset. See Brief for Respondents 36. As delivery to
mailboxes and doorsteps is essential to this nationwide
8 DOLAN v. POSTAL SERVICE
Opinion of the Court
undertaking, Congress must have intended, the Govern-
ment asserts, to insulate delivery-related torts from liabil-
ity. If, however, doorstep delivery is essential to the postal
enterprise, then driving postal trucks is no less so. And in
any event, while it is true “[t]he §2680 exceptions are
designed to protect certain important governmental func-
tions and prerogatives from disruption,” Molzof v. United
States, 502 U. S. 301, 311 (1992), the specificity of §2680(b),
see Kosak, 465 U. S., at 855, indicates that Congress did
not intend to immunize all postal activities.
Other FTCA exceptions paint with a far broader brush.
They cover, for example: “[a]ny claim for damages caused
by the fiscal operations of the Treasury or by the regula-
tion of the monetary system,” 28 U. S. C. §2680(i); “[a]ny
claim arising out of the combatant activities of the mili-
tary or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of
war,” §2680(j); “[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country,”
§2680(k); “[a]ny claim arising from the activities of the
Tennessee Valley Authority,” §2680(l), or “the Panama
Canal Company,” §2680(m); and “[a]ny claim arising from
the activities of a Federal land bank, a Federal intermedi-
ate credit bank, or a bank for cooperatives,” §2680(n). Had
Congress intended to preserve immunity for all torts
related to postal delivery—torts including hazardous mail
placement at customer homes—it could have used simi-
larly sweeping language in §2680(b). By instead “carefully
delineat[ing]” just three types of harm (loss, miscarriage,
and negligent transmission), see Kosak, supra, at 855,
Congress expressed the intent to immunize only a subset
of postal wrongdoing, not all torts committed in the course
of mail delivery.
Further supporting our interpretation, losses of the type
for which immunity is retained under §2680(b) are at least
to some degree avoidable or compensable through postal
registration and insurance. See United States Postal
Service, Domestic Mail Manual pt. 609.1.1 (Nov. 10, 2005),
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 9
Opinion of the Court
available at http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm300/609.htm (as
visited Jan. 9, 2006, and available in Clerk of Court’s case
file) (allowing indemnity claims for loss or damage of
“insured, collect on delivery (COD), registered with postal
insurance, or Express Mail”); 39 CFR §111.1 (2005) (incor-
porating by reference the Domestic Mail Manual). The
same was true when Congress enacted the FTCA in 1946.
See 39 U. S. C. §245 (1940 ed. and Supp. V) (setting rates
and conditions for mail insurance); 39 U. S. C. §381 (1946
ed.) (“For the greater security of valuable mail matter the
Postmaster General may establish a uniform system of
registration, and as a part of such system he may provide
rules under which the senders or owners of any registered
matter shall be indemnified for loss, rifling, or damage
thereof in the mails . . .”). As Kosak explains, one purpose
of the FTCA exceptions was to avoid “extending the cover-
age of the Act to suits for which adequate remedies were
already available,” 465 U. S., at 858—an objective consis-
tent with retaining immunity as to claims of mail damage
or delay covered by postal registration and insurance.
While the Government suggests other injuries falling
outside the FTCA are also subject to administrative relief,
even assuming that is true the provision the Government
cites permits only discretionary relief, not an automatic
remedy like postal insurance. See 39 U. S. C. §2603 (indi-
cating the Postal Service “may adjust and settle” personal-
injury and property-damage claims “not cognizable” under
the FTCA’s administrative relief provision); see also 31
U. S. C. §224c (1940 ed.) (indicating that “[w]hen any
damage is done to person or property by or through the
operation of the Post Office Department . . . the Postmas-
ter General is invested with power to adjust and settle any
claim for such damage when his award for such damage in
any case does not exceed $500”); Legislative Reorganiza-
tion Act of 1946, §424(a), 60 Stat. 846–847 (repealing
§224c as to negligence claims cognizable under the FTCA).
10 DOLAN v. POSTAL SERVICE
Opinion of the Court
The Government raises the specter of frivolous slip-and-
fall claims inundating the Postal Service. It is true that,
in addition to other considerations we have identified,
Kosak describes “avoiding exposure of the United States to
liability for excessive or fraudulent claims” as a principal
aim of the FTCA exceptions, 465 U. S., at 858. Slip-and-
fall liability, however, to the extent state tort law imposes
it, is a risk shared by any business that makes home
deliveries. Given that “negligent transmission,” viewed in
context and in light of Kosak, cannot sweep as broadly as
the Government claims, ordinary protections against
frivolous litigation must suffice here, just as they do in the
case of motor vehicle collisions.
Finally, it should be noted that this case does not impli-
cate the general rule that “a waiver of the Government’s
sovereign immunity will be strictly construed, in terms of
its scope, in favor of the sovereign,” Lane v. Peña, 518 U. S.
187, 192 (1996). As Kosak explains, this principle is “un-
helpful” in the FTCA context, where “unduly generous
interpretations of the exceptions run the risk of defeating
the central purpose of the statute,” 465 U. S., at 853, n. 9,
which “waives the Government’s immunity from suit in
sweeping language,” United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340
U. S. 543, 547 (1951); see also United States v. Nordic Vil-
lage, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 34 (1992) (observing “[w]e have on
occasion narrowly construed exceptions to waivers of sover-
eign immunity where that was consistent with Congress’
clear intent, as in the context of the ‘sweeping language’ of
the [FTCA]” (quoting Yellow Cab Co., supra, at 547)).
Hence, “the proper objective of a court attempting to con-
strue one of the subsections of 28 U. S. C. §2680 is to
identify ‘those circumstances which are within the words
and reason of the exception’—no less and no more.” Ko-
sak, supra, at 853, n. 9 (quoting Dalehite v. United States,
346 U. S. 15, 31 (1953)). Having made that inquiry here,
we conclude Dolan’s claims fall outside §2680(b).
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 11
Opinion of the Court
* * *
The postal exception is inapplicable, and Dolan’s claim
falls within the FTCA’s general waiver of federal sovereign
immunity. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is re-
versed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE ALITO took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 1
THOMAS, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 04–848
_________________
BARBARA DOLAN, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES
POSTAL SERVICE ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
[February 22, 2006]
JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives the Gov-
ernment’s sovereign immunity for civil suits seeking
money damages
“for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or
death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omis-
sion of any employee of the Government while acting
within the scope of his office or employment, under
circumstances where the United States, if a private
person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance
with the law of the place where the act or omission oc-
curred,” 28 U. S. C. §1346(b)(1),
save several exceptions found in §2680. As relevant here,
Congress reserved to the Government its sovereign immu-
nity respecting “[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscar-
riage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal mat-
ter.” §2680(b) (postal exception).
Petitioner Barbara Dolan claims to have suffered per-
sonal injuries when she tripped over letters, packages, and
periodicals that an employee of the United States Postal
Service (Postal Service) negligently left on her porch.
Today, the Court concludes that Dolan’s lawsuit may
proceed because her claim does not fall within the excep-
tion. I disagree. Dolan’s claim arises out of the Postal
2 DOLAN v. POSTAL SERVICE
THOMAS, J., dissenting
Service’s “negligent transmission” of mail and is thus
covered by the terms of the postal exception. Even if the
exception is ambiguous, this Court’s cases require that
ambiguities as to the scope of the Government’s waiver of
immunity be resolved in its favor. Accordingly, I respect-
fully dissent.
I
The text of the postal exception, and every term therein,
should be ascribed its ordinary meaning. See FDIC v.
Meyer, 510 U. S. 471, 477 (1994) (noting that we interpret
a statutory term in accordance with its ordinary meaning
when that term is not defined in the statute). The term in
controversy here is “negligent transmission.” The crux of
my disagreement with the majority is its failure to assign
the term “transmission” its plain meaning. That term is
defined as the “[a]ct, operation, or process, of transmit-
ting.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2692 (2d
ed. 1934, as republished 1945). “Transmit” is defined as,
inter alia, “[t]o send or transfer from one person or place
to another; to forward by rail, post, wire, etc., . . . [t]o
cause . . . to pass or be conveyed.” Id., at 2692–2693.
There is no cause to conclude that Congress was unaware
of the ordinary definition of the terms “transmission” and
“transmit” when it enacted the FTCA and the postal ex-
ception in 1946. Nor is there textual indication that Con-
gress intended to deviate from the ordinary meaning of
these terms.1 Accordingly, I would interpret the term
——————
1 In fact, this reading is supported by Congress’ routine definitional
use of the terms “transmission” and “transmit” in both criminal and
civil postal statutes to refer to the handling, processing, and delivery of
mail to a final destination. See, e.g., Act of Mar. 3, 1845, ch. 43, §6, 5
Stat. 734 (respecting deputy postmasters authorized “to transmit to any
person or place” official letters or packages free of charge); 18 U. S. C.
§§1696(b) and (c) (referring to unlawful “transmission” of letters);
§§1716(b), (c), (d), and (e) (regulating and proscribing “transmission in
the mails” of dangerous items (e.g., medicines) except when the “trans-
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 3
THOMAS, J., dissenting
“transmission” consistent, with its ordinary meaning, see
ante, at 4, and conclude that the postal exception exempts
the Government from liability for any claim arising out of
the negligent delivery of the mail to a Postal Service pa-
tron, including Dolan’s slip-and-fall claim.
Rejecting the “ordinary meaning and usage” of “negli-
gent transmission,” the majority concludes that the term
covers only injury arising “directly or consequentially”
from “negligence causing mail to be lost or to arrive late,
in damaged condition, or at the wrong address.” Ante, at
5, 7. Thus, in the majority’s view, “negligent transmis-
sion” covers direct injury to the mail as well as personal
injury arising from injury to the mail, but does not cover
personal injury that does not arise from damage to the
mail. For example, in the majority’s view, if a mail carrier
negligently drops a mailbox containing glassware on a
patron’s doorstep, causing the contents to shatter, and the
patron later injures himself while attempting to handle
the shards of glass, the postal exception would bar a claim
for damages for the destroyed item as well as a related
claim for personal injury. That view is correct, as far as it
goes. However, under the majority’s view, if the mail
carrier negligently places a heap of mail on a patron’s
front porch and the patron trips and falls over the mail as
he walks out of his front door, his personal injury claim
may go forward. There is no basis in the text for the line
drawn by the majority. Indeed, the majority’s view is at
odds with the broad language of the postal exception,
which expressly applies to “[a]ny claim arising out of . . .
negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.”
§2680(b) (emphasis added).
The majority rationalizes its view by concluding that the
terms “loss” and “miscarriage” necessarily limit the term
“transmission.” Ante, at 5. Applying the rule of noscitur a
——————
mission” is “to,” “from,” or “between” specified individuals or entities).
4 DOLAN v. POSTAL SERVICE
THOMAS, J., dissenting
sociis—that a word is known by the company it keeps—the
majority reasons that because both “loss” and “miscar-
riage” refer to “failings in the postal obligation to deliver
mail in a timely manner to the right address, it would be
odd if ‘negligent transmission’ swept more broadly.” Ibid.
But there is nothing “odd” about interpreting the term
“negligent transmission” to encompass more ground than
the decidedly narrower terms “loss” and “miscarriage.”
The rule of noscitur a sociis is intended to prevent as-
cribing to one word a meaning so expansive that it con-
flicts with other terms of the provision in a manner that
gives “ ‘unintended breadth to an Act of Congress.’ ”
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U. S. 561, 575 (1995) (quoting
Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U. S. 303, 307 (1961)).
That rule, however, “does not require [the Court] to con-
strue every term in a series narrowly because of the mean-
ing given to just one of the terms,” where, as here, nothing
in the text demands a more limited construction. Gustaf-
son, supra, at 586 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (emphasis
deleted). Indeed, to read Congress’ use of narrow terms in a
list as limiting the meaning of broad terms in the same list
“would defy common sense; doing so would prevent Con-
gress from giving effect to expansive words in a list when-
ever they are combined with one word with a more re-
stricted meaning.” Id., at 587.
Nor does this Court’s opinion in Kosak v. United States,
465 U. S. 848 (1984), support the majority’s narrow con-
struction of the postal exception. In Kosak, this Court
suggested that the postal exception does not apply to suits
arising from the negligent handling of motor vehicles by
Postal Service employees. Specifically, the Court stated
that:
“One of the principal purposes of the [FTCA] was to
waive the Government’s immunity from liability for
injuries resulting from auto accidents . . . . In order to
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 5
THOMAS, J., dissenting
ensure that §2680(b) . . . did not have the effect of bar-
ring precisely the sort of suit that Congress was most
concerned to authorize, the draftsmen of the provision
carefully delineated the types of misconduct for which
the Government was not assuming financial responsi-
bility—namely, ‘the loss, miscarriage, or negligent
transmission of letters or postal matter’. . . Id., at 855
(emphasis added).
That observation has no import beyond the recognition
that the postal exception—whatever its scope may be—
was carefully crafted so as not to undermine an undis-
puted principal purpose of the FTCA—to waive the Gov-
ernment’s immunity for injuries arising from auto acci-
dents. It says nothing further about the acts Congress
intended to capture when enacting the postal exception,
and, thus, is unremarkable for purposes of construing the
exception. 2
——————
2 In an attempt to reconcile Kosak with this case, the majority argues
that “one purpose of the FTCA exceptions was to avoid ‘extending
coverage of the Act to suits for which adequate remedies were already
available,’ . . . an objective consistent with retaining immunity as to
some claims of mail damage or delay covered by postal registration and
insurance.” Ante, at 9 (quoting Kosak, 465 U. S., at 858). The majority,
however, ignores the fact that, in most cases, such insurance covers
only the sender, not the recipient, in which case recipients have no
means of obtaining compensation for loss or damage to money, gifts,
heirlooms, valuable papers, delayed medicine, or time-sensitive docu-
ments. See United States Postal Service, Mailing Standards of the
United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual, §§609.4.3(f) and
(ae), pp. 1129, 1130 (rev. Jan. 6, 2005). The majority’s justification also
fails to take into account the fact that postal patrons cannot insure
against the loss of items of sentimental value. See id., §609.4.3, gener-
ally. With a more accurate depiction of registration and insurance
coverage in hand, the Government’s claim that, like injuries arising
from negligent transmission of mail, other injuries outside the reach of
the FTCA are also amenable to administrative relief is not so easily
dismissed. Ante, at 9. Specifically, 39 U. S. C. §2603, as the Govern-
ment argues, provides for the settlement of claims, within the discre-
6 DOLAN v. POSTAL SERVICE
THOMAS, J., dissenting
Even if Kosak does inform the outcome in this case, it
does not support the majority’s interpretation of “negligent
transmission.” As discussed above, the majority does not
purport to limit the type of negligent act that may fall
under the postal exception; rather it limits the scope of the
exception based on the type of consequence that the negli-
gent act causes (damage to the mail, late delivery, etc.)
But Kosak’s exclusion of the act of negligent driving—
regardless of whether the consequence of that act is dam-
age to the mail or injury to a person—from the scope of the
postal exception implies, if anything, that the Kosak Court
envisioned discrete acts as being covered, independently of
the nature of their consequences. See 465 U. S., at 855
(excluding “negligent handling of motor vehicles” from the
“types of misconduct” for which liability is barred by the
postal exception). As such, Kosak does not support an
interpretation of “negligent transmission” based upon the
type of injury that is caused by the Postal Service’s negli-
gent handling of the mail.
II
Assuming that the postal exception is ambiguous, as the
majority suggests, see ante, at 4–5, settled principles
governing the interpretation of waivers of sovereign im-
munity require us to rule in favor of the Government.
A court may only exercise jurisdiction over the Gov-
ernment pursuant to “a clear statement from the United
States waiving sovereign immunity . . . together with a
claim falling within the terms of the waiver.” United
States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U. S. 465, 472
——————
tion of the United States, for injuries caused by the Postal Service that
are not otherwise cognizable, which would include claims like Dolan’s.
The discretionary nature of such settlements does not alter the fact
that §2603 undermines the Court’s position that the purported un-
availability of administrative recovery for claims such as Dolan’s
supports its proposed interpretation.
Cite as: 546 U. S. ____ (2006) 7
THOMAS, J., dissenting
(2003). “[A] waiver of the Government’s sovereign immu-
nity will be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in
favor of the sovereign.” Lane v. Peña, 518 U. S. 187, 192
(1996). These settled legal principles apply not only to the
interpretation of the scope of the Government’s waiver of
immunity, but also to the interpretation of the scope of
any exceptions to that waiver. See ibid. (explaining that,
consistent with rules of construction respecting waivers of
sovereign immunity, ambiguities created by conditions on
and qualifications of the waiver must be strictly construed
in favor of sovereign immunity).
Thus, the majority is incorrect to conclude that “this
case does not implicate the general rule that ‘a waiver of
the Government’s sovereign immunity will be strictly
construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign.’ ”
Ante, at 10. As this case clearly illustrates, the Govern-
ment’s amenability to suit can only be ascertained after
construing both the waiver of immunity and its excep-
tions. The well-established rationale for construing a
waiver in favor of the sovereign’s immunity, thus, applies
with equal force to the construction of an exception to that
waiver. Accordingly, even if I were to conclude that the
majority’s interpretation of “negligent transmission” were
as plausible as my own, I would still resolve this case in
favor of the Government’s sovereign immunity as man-
dated by our canons of construction.3
——————
3 There is no canon of construction that counsels in favor of constru-
ing the ambiguity against the Government. Although we have “on
occasion narrowly construed exceptions to waivers of sovereign immu-
nity,” we have done so in cases where Congress plainly waived the
Government’s immunity for the particular claim at issue, and the only
question before the Court was the permissibility of the form of the suit.
United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 34 (1992) (citing
United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U. S. 543 (1951), and United
States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 338 U. S. 366 (1949)). In cases
where, as here, the question whether a particular claim is subject to an
exception is disputed, we have construed FTCA exceptions broadly to
8 DOLAN v. POSTAL SERVICE
THOMAS, J., dissenting
* * *
For these reasons, I would hold that a tort claim for
personal injury arising out of negligent delivery of mail to
a postal patron is barred by 28 U. S. C. §2680(b), the
postal exception. Accordingly, I would affirm the judg-
ment of the Court of Appeals.
——————
preclude claims for actions Congress intended to except from the
FTCA’s general waiver of immunity. See Dalehite v. United States, 346
U. S. 15, 31 (1953); United States v. Orleans, 425 U. S. 807 (1976);
Kosak v. United States, 465 U. S. 848 (1984).