The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 5–4 that a Texas woman cannot sue the United States Postal Service (USPS) over claims that mail carriers intentionally refused to deliver her mail because of her race.
Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that federal law shields USPS from such lawsuits, even when the alleged conduct involves deliberate nondelivery.
The decision reversed a lower court ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed.
The Allegations
Lebene Konan, a Texas real estate agent and landlord, alleged that USPS employees carried out what she described as a “racially motivated harassment campaign” against her over a period of years.
According to court records, Konan, who is black, filed more than 50 administrative complaints.
She claimed postal officials changed the lock on her post office box, refused to deliver mail to one of her properties, and taped a notice to her mailbox stating they would not deliver mail to her tenants.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit described the situation as follows:
“Instead, the facts present a continued, intentional effort not to deliver Konan’s mail over a two-year period.”
That appeals court reversed a district court’s dismissal and allowed the lawsuit to move forward.
The Supreme Court overturned that ruling.
The Legal Question
The dispute centered on the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which generally waives sovereign immunity and allows citizens to sue federal agencies for wrongful conduct.
However, the statute contains an exception for claims arising from the “loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission” of mail.
The majority held that this exception also covers intentional withholding of delivery.
Thomas wrote that allowing lawsuits over mail delivery disputes could overwhelm the courts and the Postal Service.
“Given the frequency of postal workers’ interactions with citizens, those suits would arise so often that they would create a significant burden for the government and the courts,” Thomas wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito, who joined the majority, had raised similar concerns during oral arguments.
“Is the cost of the first-class letter going to be $3 now?” Alito asked.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority.
A Cross-Ideological Dissent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Sotomayor argued that the majority expanded the statutory exception beyond its intended scope.
“The majority concludes that the postal exception captures, and therefore protects, the intentional nondelivery of mail, even when that nondelivery was driven by malicious reasons,” Sotomayor wrote.
“Because this interpretation expands the scope of the exception beyond what it can reasonably support, and undermines the FTCA’s sweeping waiver in the process, I respectfully dissent,” she added.
The dissent coalition included both liberal justices and Justice Gorsuch, highlighting that the case did not divide cleanly along ideological lines.
Accountability Questions
The Justice Department told the Court that Konan’s mail was withheld because she failed to maintain a required directory of current tenants.
The Supreme Court did not rule on whether postal officials acted properly.
That factual question may still be addressed in lower courts.
However, under Tuesday’s decision, Konan cannot pursue tort damages against USPS.
The ruling underscores the breadth of sovereign immunity protections for federal agencies, particularly in areas where Congress has carved out exceptions, such as mail delivery.
For critics of expansive federal bureaucracy, the case highlights a recurring tension regarding how to balance operational efficiency against individual accountability.
The Postal Service delivered more than 116 billion pieces of mail to over 166 million delivery points in fiscal year 2023.
The majority concluded that opening the door to litigation over delivery disputes would pose substantial systemic burdens.
Whether Congress revisits the scope of the postal exception remains to be seen.
For now, the Supreme Court has made clear that the FTCA does not permit lawsuits against USPS for intentional nondelivery of mail.
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.