Supreme Court Rules Postal Service Immune from Lawsuits Over Intentional Mail Withholding

High court reverses 5th Circuit, finds FTCA postal exception 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 has 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 racial animus or other improper motives. The 5-4 decision reverses a lower court ruling and resolves a circuit split on the scope of the postal exception.

Why it matters

This ruling significantly expands the legal immunity granted to the Postal Service, making it more difficult for individuals to seek recourse through the courts when postal workers intentionally fail to deliver their mail. The decision has drawn criticism from the dissenting justices, who argue it improperly shields the Postal Service from accountability for intentional misconduct by its employees.

The details

The case, U.S. Postal Service v. Konan, centered around a long-running dispute between property owner Lebene Konan and her local post office in Euless, Texas. Konan sued the Postal Service after her and her tenants' mail was allegedly withheld for two years, claiming the workers intentionally refused delivery due to racial animus. A federal judge initially dismissed the case, citing the FTCA's postal exception, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. The Supreme Court has now overturned the 5th Circuit, finding the postal exception does cover claims of intentional non-delivery.

  • The Supreme Court issued its ruling on February 24, 2026.
  • The case, U.S. Postal Service v. Konan, had been pending before the Supreme Court since it granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split.

The players

Lebene Konan

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

U.S. Postal Service

The defendant in the case, a federal agency that the Supreme Court has now ruled is immune from lawsuits over intentional failures to deliver mail under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Both 'miscarriage' and 'loss' of mail under the postal exception can occur as a result of the Postal Service's intentional failure to deliver the mail.”

— Justice Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court opinion)

“Today, the Court holds that one exception — the postal exception — prevents individuals from recovering for injuries based on a postal employee's intentional misconduct, including when an employee maliciously withholds their mail. Because this reading of the postal exception transforms, rather than honors, the exception Congress enacted, I respectfully dissent.”

— Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Supreme Court dissent)

What’s next

The Supreme Court's ruling is expected to face continued criticism and potential legislative efforts to narrow the postal exception, though the high court's decision will remain binding precedent unless Congress acts.

The takeaway

This Supreme Court decision significantly expands the legal immunity granted to the U.S. Postal Service, making it more difficult for individuals to seek recourse through the courts when postal workers are alleged to have intentionally withheld mail due to improper motives. The ruling has drawn sharp dissent from several justices who argue it improperly shields the Postal Service from accountability.