Supreme Court Backs USPS in Discrimination Lawsuit

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the U.S. Postal Service cannot be sued for intentionally failing to deliver mail, siding with the federal government in a closely divided 5-4 decision.

The ruling goes against a Texas landlord who alleged postal workers targeted her because of her race and refused to deliver mail to two rental properties as part of a "racially motivated harassment campaign."

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said the government's sovereign immunity remains intact under a "postal exception" in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) — even when the alleged misconduct is deliberate.

The FTCA allows damages suits against the United States for certain negligent acts by federal employees, but it preserves immunity for claims "arising out of the loss, miscarriage or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter."

"A 'miscarriage of mail' includes failure of the mail to arrive at its intended destination, regardless of the carrier's intent or where the mail goes instead," Thomas wrote.

Lebene Konan sued under the FTCA, alleging two Postal Service employees made it "impossible" for her or her tenants in Euless, Texas, to receive mail "solely because she is Black." A federal district court dismissed the case.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit revived it in part, finding the postal exception did not apply because the actions were intentional rather than negligent.

"There was no 'loss' of mail because the mail was not destroyed or misplaced by unintentional action," Judge Dana Douglas, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, wrote for the unanimous panel. "Likewise, there was no 'miscarriage' because there was no attempt at a carriage."

"Finally, the postal workers' actions were intentional and thus cannot constitute a 'negligent transmission,'" Douglas added.

The Justice Department argued Congress adopted the exception to protect mail operations from "disruptive litigation" and warned that allowing lawsuits like Konan's would create major burdens on the government and courts.

Konan's attorneys countered the exception was meant to cover routine issues like broken items during shipping or late deliveries — not alleged intentional wrongdoing.

Konan has alleged Postal Service workers changed the designated owner of one of her properties to a white tenant and changed the mailbox lock so only the white tenant could access it. She said she lost thousands of dollars in rental income when tenants moved out after failing to receive critical mail, including bills, credit card statements, and medications.

"This case couldn't be more different," her attorney Robert Clary wrote in a brief.

The Supreme Court did not decide whether all of Konan's claims are barred, but it vacated the lower court ruling and sent the case back for further consideration.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Neil Gorsuch, arguing the Court's interpretation "transforms, rather than honors," Congress' intent.

"The key question is thus as follows: What kind of misconduct falls within the 'words and reason' of the postal exception?" Sotomayor wrote. "All signs point to Congress leaving intentional misconduct outside of the exception's scope."

• USPS Warns About New Postmark Rule Amid Customer Backlash
• Rural America Angry With Degraded US Mail Service