Supreme Court to Hear Case on USPS Mail Delivery Accountability

Fri Dec 05 2025 15:33:33 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

A Texas landlord challenges the immunity of the U.S. Postal Service against lawsuits for intentional mail withholding, raising concerns over potential implications during the busy holiday season.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could redefine the accountability of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) regarding lost or delayed mail. The case stems from a Texas landlord's allegation that postal employees intentionally withheld her mail for two years due to racial bias. While previous laws have shielded USPS from lawsuits concerning misdelivery, this case questions whether that exemption applies when postal staff are accused of deliberate misconduct. The outcome could open the floodgates for lawsuits over mail issues, particularly as the holiday season approaches, which typically sees increased mail volume.

HARTFORD, Conn. — As a general rule, suing the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for lost, delayed, or mishandled mail is challenging. However, a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court may challenge that norm.

The case involves Lebene Konan, a landlord from Texas, who claims her mail was intentionally withheld for two years, alleging racial discrimination by USPS employees. The postal service warns that ruling in favor of Konan could lead to a surge of lawsuits regarding missing or delayed mail, particularly relevant during the holiday season when mail volume significantly increases.

The core issue at play is whether the existing exemption that protects USPS under the Federal Tort Claims Act applies when employees purposefully fail to deliver mail. During oral arguments, Federal Solicitor General Frederick Liu cautioned that such a ruling could prompt a concerning wave of litigation over everyday mail issues.

The Federal Tort Claims Act typically allows individuals to sue the federal government for damages caused by negligent actions of federal employees. However, specific exemptions exist for USPS regarding complaints about lost or misdirected mail. The phrases used in these exemptions have become central to the arguments in this case.

Last month, some justices seemed to doubt the government's assertion that USPS is shielded from claims of intentional misdelivery. Justice Samuel Alito expressed concerns about the consequences of potential frivolous lawsuits flooding the court, questioning if the cost of postage would rise dramatically as a result.

Konan's allegations are backed by a history of complaints against the local USPS office after her mailbox key was changed without her knowledge. She claims that employees discriminated against her and her tenants based on her race, leading to denied access to important correspondence, including medications and rental documentation.

The case, which has already gone through several courts, holds potential implications not only for USPS but also for mail service accountability in the United States. The appellate court recently found that allegations against Konan did not categorically fall under the USPS exemptions, allowing her claims to proceed.

With a decision expected next year, the outcome may significantly impact how mail delivery issues are addressed legally, as Konan and her legal team continue to advocate for accountability in postal service operations.