SCOTUS Rules Postal Service Immune from Lawsuits Over Intentional Mail Withholding

High court finds postal exception in Federal Tort Claims Act bars claims over intentional non-delivery of mail.

Published on Feb. 27, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception shields the U.S. Postal Service from lawsuits over the intentional withholding of mail, even in cases where postal workers are alleged to have deliberately refused to deliver mail due to discrimination or other malicious reasons.

Why it matters

This decision expands the scope of the postal exception in the FTCA, making it more difficult for individuals to seek legal recourse against the Postal Service for intentional misconduct by postal workers. It raises concerns about accountability for the Postal Service and whether citizens have adequate means to address grievances over mail delivery issues.

The details

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that had allowed a property owner's lawsuit against the Postal Service to proceed. The plaintiff, Lebene Konan, had alleged that postal workers in Euless, Texas intentionally withheld mail to her rental properties for over two years due to racial discrimination. The high court found that the FTCA's postal exception, which bars claims 'arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter,' applies even when the Postal Service's actions are intentional rather than merely negligent.

  • The Supreme Court issued its ruling on February 24, 2026.

The players

Lebene Konan

A property owner in Euless, Texas who sued the U.S. Postal Service over the intentional withholding of mail to her rental properties.

U.S. Postal Service

The defendant in the lawsuit, which was shielded from liability by the Supreme Court's ruling on the Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“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. Konan's claims about the Postal Service's willful failure to deliver her mail therefore result from the miscarriage of her mail.”

— Justice Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court opinion)

“For two years, respondent Lebene Konan and her tenants did not receive mail addressed to the rental properties that Konan owned. According to Konan, negligence was not to blame. Quite the opposite: She alleges that United States Postal Service employees intentionally withheld delivery because they did not like 'that a black person own[ed]' the properties and 'lease[d] rooms . . . to white people.'”

— Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Supreme Court dissenting opinion)

What’s next

The Supreme Court's ruling sets a precedent that will make it more difficult for individuals to sue the Postal Service over intentional misconduct by postal workers. This could lead to further scrutiny and debate over the scope of the postal exception in the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The takeaway

This Supreme Court decision expands the Postal Service's legal immunity, potentially reducing accountability for intentional wrongdoing by postal workers and making it harder for individuals to seek redress for grievances over mail delivery issues. It raises concerns about balancing the need for efficient mail service with ensuring proper oversight and recourse for aggrieved citizens.