The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the U.S. Postal Service cannot be sued over intentionally misdelivered mail, extending federal immunity protections in a closely divided 5-4 decision that split along ideological lines.
Writing for the majority in *U.S. Postal Service v. Konan*, Justice Clarence Thomas held that a federal law protecting the postal service from lawsuits over lost or miscarried mail also bars claims involving deliberate mail withholding. The decision resolves a circuit split over the scope of postal service immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a sharp dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing the majority gave the postal service far broader protection than Congress intended. "It is not the role of the Judiciary to supplant the choice Congress made because it would have chosen differently," Sotomayor wrote.
The case originated from a years-long conflict between Texas landlord Lebene Konan and postal workers in Euless, Texas. Konan spent years fighting to have mail delivered to a shared mailbox for herself and her tenants, but postal workers regularly held mail at the post office or returned it to senders, claiming Konan failed to meet identification requirements for all addressees.
Konan ultimately sued the U.S. Postal Service, two individual postal workers, and the United States under multiple theories, including intentional infliction of emotional distress and business interference. She argued the mail delivery problems constituted racial discrimination and made it harder to find and retain tenants for her rental properties.
The Supreme Court addressed only Konan's claims against the postal service and federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which outlines when the federal government can be sued for damages. The central legal question involved interpreting the FTCA's postal exception, which protects the government from lawsuits "arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter."
Federal appeals courts had split on whether this postal exception covers intentional acts. The government argued that intentional nondelivery constitutes "loss" or "miscarriage" within the exception's scope. Konan contended the exception applies only to accidental mail handling problems, not deliberate withholding.
Thomas's majority opinion sided with the government's interpretation, ruling that intentional failure to deliver mail falls within the postal exception. "The ordinary meanings of both 'miscarriage' and 'loss' point the court to this conclusion," Thomas wrote, explaining that mail can be "lost" regardless of whether the loss was intentional or accidental.
The majority emphasized that the postal exception's language focuses on the outcome rather than the postal service's intent. Thomas noted that "miscarriage" historically encompassed both accidental and intentional mail handling failures, supporting a broad reading of the statutory protection.
Sotomayor's dissent challenged this interpretation, arguing Congress intended the postal exception to cover only negligent acts, not intentional misconduct. The dissent pointed to the exception's reference to "negligent transmission," suggesting Congress meant to exclude intentional wrongdoing from postal service immunity.
"The majority's interpretation renders the word 'negligent' superfluous," Sotomayor wrote, applying the canon of statutory construction that assumes Congress uses every word purposefully. The dissent warned the ruling could insulate postal workers from accountability for deliberate discrimination or other intentional misconduct.
The decision significantly expands postal service legal protections at a time when the agency faces ongoing operational and financial challenges. Critics argue the ruling could reduce incentives for proper mail handling and limit recourse for customers experiencing deliberate service failures.
Legal experts noted the unusual coalition in Sotomayor's dissent, with conservative Justice Gorsuch joining the three liberal justices. This alignment suggests the statutory interpretation issue transcended typical ideological divisions on the court.
The ruling affects only claims against the postal service itself under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Konan's lawsuit against individual postal workers under different legal theories remains pending in lower courts, as federal immunity protections don't necessarily shield individual employees from personal liability.
Postal service accountability advocates expressed concern that the decision could embolden problematic mail handling practices, particularly in communities already experiencing service disparities. However, postal officials emphasized that internal disciplinary measures and other oversight mechanisms remain available to address employee misconduct.
The decision establishes binding precedent for all federal courts, resolving the circuit split that had created inconsistent legal standards across different regions. Future plaintiffs seeking to sue the postal service will need to pursue alternative legal theories outside the Federal Tort Claims Act's scope.
For Konan, the ruling eliminates her federal tort claims against the postal service but leaves open her discrimination and other claims against individual defendants. The case now returns to lower courts for resolution of the remaining issues not addressed by the Supreme Court's decision.