Supreme Court Rules Post Office Can’t Be Sued
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a consequential ruling Tuesday, siding with the federal government in a closely watched case that clarifies the limits of lawsuits against the U.S. Postal Service.
In a 5-4 decision in U.S. Postal Service v. Konan, the Court held that a longstanding federal statute shields the Postal Service not only from claims involving negligent mishandling of mail, but also from lawsuits alleging intentional misdelivery.
Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas explained that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) preserves the government’s immunity for claims arising out of the “loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission” of mail. The Court concluded that those terms encompass intentional nondelivery and misdelivery — not just accidents.
The ruling marks a significant interpretation of the FTCA’s so-called “postal exception,” which bars certain lawsuits against the federal government.
A Dispute Out of Texas
The case stemmed from a yearslong dispute in Euless, Texas, between landlord Lebene Konan and local postal workers. Konan sought to have mail for herself and her tenants delivered to a shared mailbox on her property. Postal employees instead frequently held the mail at the post office or returned it to senders, citing identification concerns for certain recipients.
Konan ultimately sued the U.S. Postal Service, two postal employees, and the United States government, alleging emotional distress and interference with her business. She claimed the mail practices were discriminatory and made it harder to attract and retain tenants.
However, Tuesday’s ruling addressed only her claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the Postal Service and the federal government. It did not resolve her separate claims against individual employees.
Majority: Statute Covers Intentional Acts
At the heart of the case was a disagreement among lower federal courts about the scope of the FTCA’s postal exception, which bars claims “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.”
The federal government argued that intentional nondelivery qualifies as either a “loss” or “miscarriage” under the statute. Konan countered that Congress intended the exception to apply only to negligent conduct — not deliberate actions.
A majority of justices agreed with the government.
Thomas pointed to the ordinary meaning of the statutory language. “Because a ‘miscarriage’ includes any failure of mail to arrive properly, a person experiences a miscarriage of mail when his mail is delivered to his neighbor, held at the post office, or returned to the sender—regardless of why it happened,” he wrote. Likewise, “[w]hen Congress enacted the FTCA, the ‘loss’ of mail ordinarily meant a deprivation of mail, regardless of how the deprivation was brought about.”
Thomas also underscored the sheer scale of the Postal Service’s operations, suggesting Congress had strong practical reasons to limit liability.
“In 2024, the Postal Service’s more than 600,000 employees delivered more than 112 billion pieces of mail—over 300 million a day—to more than 165 million delivery points. Unsurprisingly, given this volume, not all mail arrives properly and on time,” he wrote.
The majority’s reasoning reflects a broader judicial philosophy of deferring to statutory text and congressional design — especially where expanding liability could open the floodgates to litigation against the federal government.
Dissent: Congress Meant to Draw a Line
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Sotomayor argued that the majority’s interpretation stretches the statute beyond what Congress intended. “It is not the role of the Judiciary to supplant the choice Congress made because it would have chosen differently,” she wrote.
In her view, Congress deliberately chose specific terms — “loss,” “miscarriage,” and “negligent transmission” — signaling that the exception should be read narrowly. “By using ‘specificity’ over ‘generality,’ it follows that Congress intended for this exception” to be limited in scope, she wrote.
She further contended that the majority’s “reading of the postal exception transforms, rather than honors, the exception Congress enacted.”
A Narrow But Impactful Ruling
While the decision does not eliminate all potential claims against individual postal workers, it significantly strengthens the federal government’s shield against lawsuits tied to mail delivery failures — whether negligent or intentional.
For now, the Court has made clear: when it comes to lost or misdelivered mail, Congress — not the courts — sets the boundaries of liability.