Court holds that U.S. Postal Service can’t be sued over intentionally misdelivered mail

SCOTUSblog

by Kelsey Dallas

February 24, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the U.S. Postal Service cannot be sued for intentionally misdelivered mail under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the FTCA’s postal exception, which shields the government from lawsuits related to “loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters,” applies even when mail is intentionally mishandled. The court concluded that such intentional failures fall under the terms “loss” and “miscarriage,” as these words broadly encompass any failure for mail to reach its intended recipient. The case stemmed from a dispute involving Lebene Konan, a landlord in Euless, Texas, who claimed postal workers intentionally failed to deliver her mail due to racial discrimination. She sued the Postal Service, postal employees, and the U.S. government, alleging emotional distress and business interference. While lower courts split on whether intentional misdelivery fell under the FTCA’s exception, the Supreme Court sided with the government, holding that Congress intended the exception to cover all forms of mail mishandling, regardless of intent. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the majority for expanding the scope of the postal exception beyond what Congress had envisioned. She argued that the statute specifically targets “loss,” “miscarriage,” and “negligent transmission,” not intentional acts. Sotomayor emphasized that it is not the role of the judiciary to rewrite laws to provide broader immunity than Congress intended, warning that the majority’s interpretation could shield the Postal Service from liability for actions it intentionally takes. This ruling has significant legal implications, particularly for how mail delivery disputes are handled and the extent of protections afforded to federal agencies under the FTCA. The decision underscores the ongoing debate over whether courts should interpret statutes narrowly or broadly when Congress has not explicitly addressed a specific type of conduct. For legal professionals, this case highlights the importance of understanding statutory language and its potential scope, as well as the balance between protecting federal entities and ensuring accountability for intentional wrongs.

Verticals

legalpolitics

Originally published on SCOTUSblog on 2/24/2026