WASHINGTON, D.C. (LOOTPRESS) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Americans cannot sue the U.S. Postal Service for failing to deliver mail, even in cases where postal workers are accused of intentionally withholding it.
In a narrow 5–4 decision, the court rejected a lawsuit brought by Texas landlord Lebene Konan, who claimed her mail was deliberately blocked for nearly two years and alleged the actions were motivated by racial bias.
Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said federal law broadly protects the Postal Service from liability involving lost, missing, or undelivered mail. He concluded that the legal shield also applies to claims of intentional nondelivery.
“The statute covers the intentional nondelivery of mail,” Thomas wrote, siding with four other conservative justices.
Konan argued that postal employees changed the mailbox lock at one of her rental properties without notifying her, preventing her from accessing and distributing tenants’ mail. Court filings say she provided proof of ownership when asked, yet delivery problems persisted — even after the Postal Service’s inspector general directed that service be restored.
She alleges workers marked mail as undeliverable or returned it to senders, causing tenants to miss bills, medications, and vehicle titles. Some renters reportedly moved out, leading to lost income.
After filing numerous complaints, Konan sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows certain lawsuits against the federal government. The case centered on whether a specific exemption for postal operations blocks claims involving deliberate conduct.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that while the Postal Service has broad immunity, it should not extend to actions allegedly driven by “malicious reasons.” She was joined by the court’s other liberal justices and Justice Neil Gorsuch.
The Trump administration had warned that allowing the lawsuit to proceed could open the door to a surge of similar claims against the financially strained Postal Service.
The ruling leaves in place long-standing legal protections for the agency and limits the ability of customers to seek damages over delivery failures, even when intentional misconduct is alleged.
