Supreme Court Rules Postal Service Can't Be Sued Over Undelivered Mail

Divided 5-4 decision protects USPS from lawsuits, even for intentional non-delivery of mail

Published on Feb. 25, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has decided that Americans cannot sue the U.S. Postal Service, even when postal employees deliberately refuse to deliver mail. The case was brought by a Texas landlord, Lebene Konan, who alleged that postal workers in Euless, Texas intentionally withheld her mail and that of her tenants for two years due to racial prejudice.

Why it matters

This ruling shields the financially-strained Postal Service from a potential flood of lawsuits over missing or undelivered mail, but also raises concerns about accountability for intentional misconduct by postal workers. The decision could have implications for mail service reliability, especially for marginalized communities who may face discrimination.

The details

Konan, who is Black, claims two postal employees in Euless, Texas changed the mailbox key for one of her rental properties without her knowledge, preventing her from collecting and distributing tenants' mail. Despite proving her ownership and the USPS inspector general instructing the mail to be delivered, the problems continued, with employees allegedly marking some mail as undeliverable or return to sender. Konan and her tenants failed to receive important mail like bills, medications and car titles, and she claims she lost rental income as a result.

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

The players

Lebene Konan

A Texas landlord and real estate/insurance agent who filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service after her mail and her tenants' mail was intentionally withheld for two years, which she alleges was due to racial prejudice by postal workers.

U.S. Postal Service

The federal agency that was sued by Konan and ultimately protected from such lawsuits by the Supreme Court's ruling.

Clarence Thomas

The Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion, siding with the conservative justices in the 5-4 decision.

Sonia Sotomayor

The Supreme Court justice who dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that the postal service exemption does not cover situations of intentional non-delivery of mail.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“While the protection against lawsuits is broad, it does not extend to situations when the decision not to deliver mail 'was driven by malicious reasons'.”

— Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court Justice

“The federal law that generally shields the Postal Service from lawsuits over missing, lost and undelivered mail includes 'the intentional nondelivery of mail'.”

— Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice

What’s next

The Supreme Court's ruling sets a precedent that will make it very difficult for individuals to sue the Postal Service over undelivered mail, even in cases of alleged intentional misconduct by postal workers.

The takeaway

This decision highlights the broad legal protections afforded to the U.S. Postal Service, which could undermine accountability for poor service or discriminatory practices, especially for marginalized communities. It also reflects the financial pressures facing the USPS and the Supreme Court's reluctance to open the door to a flood of lawsuits that could further strain the agency's resources.