Supreme Court Shields Postal Service From Lawsuits Over Undelivered Mail

Ruling bars Americans from suing USPS over missing, delayed or intentionally undelivered mail

Published on Feb. 24, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Postal Service is shielded from lawsuits over undelivered mail, even when employees are accused of deliberately refusing to deliver it. The ruling rejected a lawsuit brought by a Texas landlord who said her mail was intentionally withheld for nearly two years, preventing her from receiving important items like bills and vehicle titles. Justice Neil Gorsuch broke with the court's conservative majority, joining the liberal justices in dissent.

Why it matters

The decision underscores the broad legal protections afforded to the financially strained Postal Service, potentially making it more difficult for Americans to seek recourse when they face issues with mail delivery. The case highlights concerns about racial bias and disruptions to essential services like mail delivery.

The details

Lebene Konan, a Black real estate and insurance agent in Euless, Texas, alleged that two postal employees deliberately refused to deliver mail to one of her rental properties due to racial bias. Konan said the mailbox key was changed without her knowledge, preventing her from collecting tenants' mail, and that postal workers continued to mark mail as undeliverable or return it to senders even after being instructed to resume delivery.

  • In February 2026, the Supreme Court issued its 5-4 ruling.

The players

Neil Gorsuch

A Supreme Court justice who broke with the court's conservative majority in this ruling.

Lebene Konan

A Black real estate and insurance agent in Euless, Texas who sued the Postal Service over intentional non-delivery of mail to one of her rental properties.

Clarence Thomas

The Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion, ruling that a long-standing legal provision shields the Postal Service from lawsuits over missing, delayed or undelivered mail.

Sonia Sotomayor

The Supreme Court justice who dissented, arguing that the majority's reading of the law went too far in barring lawsuits over mail delivery issues driven by malicious motives.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“While Congress provided sweeping protection for routine mail problems, it did not clearly intend to bar lawsuits when the failure to deliver mail was allegedly driven by malicious motives.”

— Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court Justice (Newsweek)

What’s next

The ruling leaves Lebene Konan without a federal damages remedy, underscoring the broad legal protections afforded to the Postal Service.

The takeaway

This case highlights concerns about racial bias and disruptions to essential services like mail delivery, as well as the challenges Americans may face in seeking recourse when they encounter issues with the financially strained Postal Service.