Supreme Court rules Postal Service immune from lawsuits even for intentional mail non-delivery, blocking claims from Americans denied mail service including a case alleging racial discrimination.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday that Americans cannot sue the U.S. Postal Service even when employees deliberately refuse to deliver mail. The decision came in a case brought by Lebene Konan, a Black Texas landlord who alleges postal employees intentionally withheld her mail for two years, possibly due to racial discrimination.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the conservative majority, said federal law's protection for the Postal Service extends to 'the intentional nondelivery of mail.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing the protection shouldn't cover situations where non-delivery 'was driven by malicious reasons.' Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the three liberal justices in dissent.
The Trump administration had warned that ruling for Konan would trigger a flood of lawsuits against the cash-strapped Postal Service. Konan claims two employees at a Euless, Texas post office deliberately didn't deliver mail to her and her tenants despite proving property ownership and complaints to the USPS inspector general. She and her tenants failed to receive bills, medications, and car titles, and she lost rental income when tenants moved out due to the mail problems.
Editor’s rationale — Supreme Court ruling establishes significant institutional precedent by narrowing tort liability protections for federal agencies (5-4 decision with implications for government accountability), affects nationwide mail delivery accountability with medium-term legal consequences. Primary source verification from official court ruling with AP reporting. National scope through precedent-setting nature of decision, though immediate operational impact is constrained to USPS legal liability framework.