Postal Service v. Konan · ¶29

We disagree with Konan’s attempt to limit “miscarriage” to negligent failures of mail to arrive properly.Brief for Respondent 19–20; accord, post, at 414 (Sotomayor, J., dis- senting).Neither Konan nor the dissent cites any dictionar- ies imposing this limitation.Instead, Konan cites examples of uses of the term “miscarriage” that suggest that the mis- carriage in question was unintentional, such as an 1868 telegraph-law decision explaining that a telegraph company should not be liable “for every mistake, miscarriage, or acci- dental delay that may occur.”United States Tel. Co. v. Gild- ersleve, 29 Md. 232, 246 (1868).We agree that miscarriage of mail can be unintentional, but “the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context.”District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 588 (2008).

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.