Near the end of Wednesday’s Katy Tur Reports, Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern absurdly claimed the recent Supreme Court Ruling in United States Postal Service vs. Kanan could lead to mail-in ballots in a “liberal enclave” being destroyed through an apparent Department of Justice and USPS conspiracy.
The Supreme Court’s five-to-four ruling prevented the postal service from being held legally responsible for postal workers going postal intentionally not delivering or mishandling the mail.
But, MS NOW host Katy Tur and Stern took the case outcome as an opportunity to spread more fear of a mythical Trump administration scheme to collude with the USPS to interfere in the 2026 Midterm Election. Stern recently wrote a piece where he decried the ruling.
After Tur asked what impact the ruling would have on mail-in Ballots, Stern started to connect it back to a seeming postal worker scheme:
Well, it's pretty disturbing because this liability for the government, if mail ballots are intentionally withheld or destroyed, was a key deterrent against, kind of, interference with mail voting by postal workers, which has been an issue in the past. Postal workers have been prosecuted and jailed for interfering with mail ballots. They could refuse to deliver mail ballots. They could refuse to pick up and return mail ballots, say, from a liberal enclave in a swing state.
Tur then presented examples of postal workers deliberate destruction of ballots in New Jersey, Kentucky, and Florida:
In New Jersey in 2021, a DOJ says a postal employee admits dumping mail, including election ballots sent to West Orange residents. In Kentucky in 2020, a U.S. Postal Service employee was charged for throwing out mail, including more than 100 absentee ballots. And in Florida, in 2024 a postal worker was accused of throwing a ballot and election mail into the woods.
“99 million ballots were mailed in 2024 and processed by USPS, by the postal service,” she warned.
But the truth that they were obfuscating was the fact that the case was only about suing the government for the actions of the individual workers. As noted in SCOTUSBlog:
Specifically, the justices were asked to resolve a disagreement between the federal courts of appeals over the scope of the FTCA’s postal exception, which protects the government from suits “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.” The government contended that the postal exception bars Konan’s claims, because intentional nondelivery of mail is a form of “loss” or “miscarriage.” Konan, on the other hand, argued that the postal exception doesn’t cover intentional acts.
So wait, the Department of Justice could still charge people for destroying ballots? Well of course they could.
The premise of Stern’s conspiracy was based on the allegation that the DOJ would turn a blind eye on postal workers, the group represented by a union that had constantly endorsed democrats:
So look, that is true. But we would be relying on Donald Trump's Department of Justice to bring those criminal charges. We would be relying on his handpicked prosecutors, who say that they work on behalf of the president to charge postal workers who destroy ballots. And unfortunately, I didn't think we'd reach this point so quickly, I am not confident that this justice department, under the direct control of Trump, would bring charges against a postal worker who say, refused to deliver mail ballots to some liberal area.
He continued on with complaints about the politicization of the department in “unprecedented ways” and explained he doesn’t “a lot of confidence” in how the DOJ might prosecute postal workers.
Again, according to Stern, the group well-known for definitely not being made up of conservative Trump supporters, federal postal workers, will conspire to throw away only liberal ballots in order for Republicans to win, and then the DOJ will not charge them, even though they have in the past.
Stern’s grand conspiracy of the USPS being controlled by Trump to steal an election made him worthy of a brand new tinfoil hat.
The transcript is below. Click "expand":
MS NOW’s Katy Tur Reports
February 25, 2026
3:44:57 PM EasternKATY TUR: Should you be able to sue the postal service if a carrier intentionally destroys or refuses to deliver your mail? The Supreme Court says no, in a tight five-to-four ruling that now puts mail-in voting at risk. Joining us, Slate senior writer and co-host of the Amicus podcast, Mark Joseph Stern. Why can't you sue a carrier if they intentionally destroy your mail?
MARK JOSEPH STERN: Well, you should be able to, and Congress tried to ensure that you could, but the Supreme Court in this decision really, kind of, strained to reinterpret the statute differently. Justice Clarence Thomas's opinion for the court points out that you can't sue when the postal service loses your mail. So, you know, an envelope stuck in the back of the truck doesn't make it to your mailbox. You can't sue then. And Justice Thomas said, well, look, when mail is stolen by a postal carrier, when it's intentionally destroyed by a postal carrier, that's also lost mail, they're pretty much the same thing. So we don't think that you should be allowed to sue when a postal worker willfully and maliciously destroys or conceals your mail. That was the court's reasoning.
TUR: Alright. So, how does this potentially affect mail-in voting?
STERN: Well, it's pretty disturbing because this liability for the government, if mail ballots are intentionally withheld or destroyed, was a key deterrent against, kind of, interference with mail voting by postal workers, which has been an issue in the past. Postal workers have been prosecuted and jailed for interfering with mail ballots. They could refuse to deliver mail ballots. They could refuse to pick up and return mail ballots, say, from a liberal enclave in a swing state.
And because of this liability that the postal service has faced until now, USPS has been pretty, pretty sort of on guard against that kind of misconduct. But now that liability is gone, now if an American has their mail ballot stolen or destroyed by a postal worker, they can't sue for damages. They get absolutely nothing.
And so, the post office has much less of an incentive to ensure that this kind of wrongdoing behind the scenes isn't going on. This is something that election integrity experts have been concerned about. This was a sleeper case, but it was on their radar, and now there is real worry that USPS will be less on guard against the malicious destruction or withholding of mail ballots in 2026.
TUR: Well, and by the way, this is not hypothetical. It's not like we're thinking - pulling an idea out of thin air and saying, maybe this could happen. This has happened. Here are a few cases. In New Jersey in 2021, a DOJ says a postal employee admits dumping mail, including election ballots sent to West Orange residents. In Kentucky in 2020, a U.S. Postal Service employee was charged for throwing out mail, including more than 100 absentee ballots. And in Florida, in 2024 a postal worker was accused of throwing a ballot and election mail into the woods.
99 million ballots were mailed in 2024 and processed by USPS, by the postal service. If somebody is found to have destroyed a ballot, even if you cannot sue that person for damages, for violating your constitutional right to vote, there are still criminal charges that could be brought against that person, right?
STERN: So look, that is true. But we would be relying on Donald Trump's Department of Justice to bring those criminal charges. We would be relying on his handpicked prosecutors, who say that they work on behalf of the president to charge postal workers who destroy ballots. And unfortunately, I didn't think we'd reach this point so quickly, I am not confident that this Justice Department, under the direct control of Trump, would bring charges against a postal worker who say, refused to deliver mail ballots to some liberal area.
This is a Justice Department that has, I think, politicized itself in extraordinary and unprecedented ways. Attempted to charge Democratic lawmakers for their free speech, right. Let Republicans off the hook for a seemingly criminal conduct. It is really not a great backstop for the Supreme Court to just take away all this liability that the postal service faced and to just say, oh, don't worry, the DOJ can step in and prosecute postal workers who do this kind of thing. Not a lot of confidence in that process.
TUR: Alright (Sigh). Thank you so much, Mark Joseph Stern. Appreciate it.
