Supreme Court rules the Postal Service can’t be sued, even when mail is intentionally not delivered

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Americans cannot sue the U.S. Postal Service for deliberately withholding mail delivery, a 5-4 decision that significantly limits recourse against the federal agency.

The case centered on Texas landlord Lebene Konan, who alleged postal employees intentionally refused to deliver her mail for two years due to racial prejudice. Konan, who is Black, claimed employees at a post office in Euless, Texas, deliberately withheld mail addressed to her and her tenants because they objected to her race and property ownership.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the conservative majority, determined that federal law protecting USPS from lawsuits over missing, lost, or undelivered mail extends to “the intentional nondelivery of mail,” effectively immunizing the agency even in cases where employees deliberately fail to perform their duties.

In a sharp dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that while the Postal Service enjoys broad protection from litigation, this shield should not extend to situations where mail delivery decisions “were driven by malicious reasons.” Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s three liberal justices in dissent, creating an unusual split among the conservative bloc.

The dispute began when Konan discovered the mailbox key for one of her rental properties had been changed without her knowledge, preventing her from accessing tenants’ mail. According to court documents, when she contacted the local post office, employees refused to provide a new key or resume regular delivery until she proved ownership of the property.

Konan complied with this request, but the delivery problems persisted despite intervention from the USPS inspector general. She alleged employees marked her mail as undeliverable or “return to sender,” causing her and her tenants to miss critical correspondence including bills, medications, and car titles.

The situation reportedly resulted in financial losses for Konan when some tenants moved out due to the ongoing mail disruption. After filing dozens of complaints with postal officials without resolution, she turned to the courts, filing a lawsuit under the 1946 Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows certain legal actions against the government.

During the Trump administration, government lawyers warned the justices that ruling in Konan’s favor would trigger numerous similar lawsuits against the financially struggling Postal Service. The USPS has faced significant budget constraints in recent years, with declining mail volume and increasing competition from private delivery services cutting into revenue streams.

This decision arrives amid broader concerns about mail delivery reliability across the country. The Postal Service has struggled with delivery delays and service disruptions in many regions, challenges that were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic when mail-in voting surged and package deliveries increased dramatically.

The ruling establishes a significant precedent limiting accountability for the Postal Service, potentially affecting millions of Americans who rely on consistent mail delivery for business, personal correspondence, medication, and government communications. Legal experts suggest the decision may prompt calls for legislative action to create new avenues for redress when postal employees deliberately fail to deliver mail.

For citizens like Konan, the ruling effectively closes the courthouse door, leaving administrative complaints through the Postal Service’s internal systems as the primary recourse for addressing deliberate mail disruptions—a system many critics argue lacks sufficient oversight and enforcement mechanisms.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between government immunity doctrines designed to protect federal agencies from excessive litigation and the need for accountability mechanisms when government employees engage in misconduct.