Lawsuit Argues Postal Service Withheld Mail for 2 Years
A United States Postal Service truck drives through Detroit, Feb. 24, 2025. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya, File)
It’s generally very difficult to sue the US Postal Service over lost, delayed, or mishandled mail. But a case now before the US Supreme Court—brought by a Texas landlord who says her mail was deliberately withheld for two years—could challenge that long-standing protection. According to the Associated Press, the case has raised alarms within the financially strained Postal Service, which warns that a ruling against it could open the floodgates to lawsuits over everyday mail delivery problems. The timing is especially notable during the holiday season, when billions of cards, packages, and online purchases move through the postal system.
The legal question:
The dispute centers on whether the Postal Service’s exemption under the Federal Tort Claims Act still applies when postal employees intentionally fail to deliver mail. During oral arguments last month, Frederick Liu, speaking for the Department of Justice, cautioned that a ruling against the USPS could lead to a surge of lawsuits, with people assuming intentional wrongdoing whenever mail goes missing.
The Federal Tort Claims Act allows citizens to sue the government for damages caused by negligent federal employees, but Congress created several exceptions—including one shielding USPS from being sued over the “loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission” of mail. The Supreme Court must now decide whether that exception also covers intentional misconduct.
At the Supreme Court:
Some justices appeared skeptical of the government’s broad interpretation of the exemption, though they also expressed concerns about encouraging frivolous claims. Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether people might begin attributing missing mail to personal grudges—such as not receiving a holiday tip—or simple misunderstandings, and what the financial impact on USPS could be.
Easha Anand, representing the landlord, accused the government of exaggerating the risks. She argued that USPS would still retain broad immunity for most typical mail issues, and that the extreme circumstances described by her client would remain rare.
The allegations:
The landlord, Lebene Konan, says two postal employees in Euless, Texas, intentionally withheld mail from her and her tenants because they disliked that she is Black and owned multiple rental properties. Court filings state that she discovered the mailbox key for one of her properties had been changed without her permission, cutting her off from tenants’ mail. When she sought help at the local post office, she was told she wouldn’t receive a replacement key or regular delivery until she proved ownership. Even after she did, the delivery issues continued—despite instructions from the USPS Inspector General that the mail should be delivered.
Konan alleges that employees marked mail as undeliverable or returned it to sender, causing her and her tenants to miss bills, medications, car titles, and other important items.
Outside analysis:
Kevin Kosar, a postal policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, disputes the government’s argument that USPS’s exemption covers intentional non-delivery. He also doubts that a narrowly written ruling for Konan would cause a wave of new lawsuits, noting that most customers likely couldn’t find an attorney willing to take such cases in the first place.
About Post Author
