The U.S. Supreme Court recently engaged in a nuanced debate regarding whether the U.S. Postal Service and the federal government should be subject to lawsuits for intentional nondelivery of mail, a matter stirred by the case U.S. Postal Service v. Konan. In this discussion, the justices grappled with interpretations of the terms “loss” and “miscarriage” as outlined in the Federal Tort Claims Act, particularly in relation to the postal exception which the government argues shields it from such claims.
The case arose when Lebene Konan, a property owner in Texas, experienced persistent issues with the delivery of mail to her properties. This led to allegations of intentional nondelivery directed towards her due to racial discrimination. Konan, after over 50 administrative complaints, decided to pursue legal action. Initially, her case was dismissed, but upon appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit allowed part of it to proceed, positing that intentional nondelivery does not fall under the standard postal exception definitions of “loss,” “miscarriage,” or “negligent transmission.” This decision prompted the government to seek clarity from the Supreme Court on the matter.
During the oral arguments, justices were divided. Chief Justice John Roberts illustrated skepticism by pointing out that “loss” does not necessarily imply intentional misconduct. Meanwhile, Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch highlighted why Congress’s intent should be more explicitly stated if the purpose was to preclude almost all lawsuits regarding mail. Justices Kavanaugh and Alito, however, lent some support to the government’s stance, with concerns about potential litigation flooding against the USPS over minor delivery disputes, humorously noting possible lawsuits over delayed Christmas cards.
The government contends that ruling in Konan’s favor could greatly increase the number of lawsuits faced by USPS. However, Konan’s representation argued that instances of extensive mistreatment are rare. They pointed to past court decisions, such as a ruling allowing a woman to sue the USPS after tripping over mail left on her porch, which did not result in a surge of lawsuits.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson further emphasized the importance of addressing intentional nondelivery to prevent immunity for postal workers in serious circumstances, such as the mishandling of essential documents like mail-in ballots or Social Security checks. A ruling is anticipated by early July.
For more details on the case discussion, see the transcripts of the arguments held on October 25, 2025.