Supreme Court Rules Postal Service Immune from Intentional Mail Withholding Lawsuits

High court overturns 5th Circuit, finds FTCA postal exception bars claims over intentional mail non-delivery.

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 maliciously refused to deliver mail. The 5-4 decision overturned a lower court ruling that had allowed a Texas property owner's lawsuit against the Postal Service to proceed.

Why it matters

This ruling significantly narrows the ability of individuals to sue the Postal Service for intentional misconduct by postal workers, even in cases where mail is allegedly withheld for discriminatory reasons. The decision expands the scope of sovereign immunity protections for the federal government and could make it more difficult for individuals to seek recourse for grievances with the Postal Service.

The details

Lebene Konan, a property owner in Euless, Texas, sued the Postal Service after her tenants allegedly did not receive mail for two years. Konan claimed postal workers intentionally withheld the mail because they "did not like 'that a black person own[ed]' the properties and 'lease[d] rooms . . . to white people.'" A federal judge initially dismissed Konan's lawsuit, citing the FTCA's postal exception that bars claims "arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." However, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had reversed that decision, ruling the postal exception did not cover intentional withholding of mail. The Supreme Court has now overturned the 5th Circuit, finding the postal exception does apply to intentional non-delivery of mail.

  • The U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling on February 24, 2026.
  • Konan had a long-running dispute with her local post office in Euless, Texas over delivery of mail to two rental properties she owned that began around 2024.

The players

Lebene Konan

A property owner in Euless, Texas who sued the U.S. Postal Service after her tenants allegedly did not receive mail for two years, claiming postal workers intentionally withheld the mail due to racial discrimination.

U.S. Postal Service

The federal agency that was sued by Konan and was found to be immune from such lawsuits under 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 significantly more difficult for individuals to sue the Postal Service for intentional misconduct by postal workers, even in cases of alleged discrimination. This decision could face further legal challenges or prompt Congressional action to address concerns about the Postal Service's accountability.

The takeaway

This Supreme Court ruling expands the federal government's sovereign immunity protections, making it harder for individuals to seek recourse against the Postal Service for intentional wrongdoing by postal workers. The decision highlights the ongoing tension between individual rights and the government's ability to shield itself from liability, with the court's majority prioritizing the Postal Service's legal protections over the ability of citizens to sue for intentional harms.