There's more going on here that we are let to believe.
They key is in the word "intentionally".
I think they really don't want any government entity to be able to be sued for anything.
The headline is misleading. The case involved a landlord who wanted the post office to deliver to a shared postbox that she made herself for her tenants. The post office refused because it wasn't suitable, i.e. it was shit. The Supreme Court simply ruled that she couldn't force the post office to deliver to just anywhere.
The facts of the case are as you say but the case was decided by a much broader issue, sovereign immunity. In other words, no one can sue the post office for anything, even intentional acts like refusing to deliver the mail. The effect of the decision is much broader than a beef over a custom fab mailbox.
Held: The United States retains sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the intentional nondelivery of mail because both “miscarriage” and “loss” of mail under the FTCA’s postal exception can occur as a result of the Postal Service’s intentional failure to deliver the mail.
Postal Service v. Konan (24-351): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-351_7648.pdf
I can see where staggered standards matter here. Private market could fix this with efficient logistics that don't involve nigger dei hires. High price goods should get some insurance (niggers and jews) but you shouldn't be able to insure your fucking post card and sue the govt for 50 cents or whatever the fuck stamps cost these days.
