Supreme Court shields Postal Service from lawsuits over intentional mail nondelivery

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Postal Service v. Konan, 607 U.S. ____ (2026), that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s postal exception bars federal lawsuits seeking money damages for nondelivery of mail even when postal employees allegedly acted intentionally. In a 5–4 decision issued Feb. 24, 2026, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, reiterating that “The United States enjoys sovereign immunity and cannot be sued without its consent.”

The plaintiff, Lebene Konan, a landlord in Euless, Texas, alleged that postal workers intentionally withheld and returned mail addressed to her and tenants at two rental properties, causing financial loss and emotional distress. Konan’s filings assert state-law claims including nuisance, tortious interference, and conversion, and she said her mail was not delivered because she is Black. After administrative complaints to the Postal Service failed, Konan sued the United States in federal court.

Lower courts split over whether the statutory phrase “[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter,” 28 U.S.C. §2680(b), reaches intentional nondelivery. The Northern District of Texas dismissed Konan’s complaint on sovereign immunity grounds, citing precedent that the postal exception applies when plaintiffs are harmed because mail fails to arrive, arrives late, is damaged, or is delivered to the wrong address. The Fifth Circuit reversed, reasoning that the statutory language did not cover intentional withholding. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve a split with the First and Second Circuits, which had read the exception more broadly.

The Court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true at the dismissal stage, citing its procedural precedent, but concluded that the FTCA’s express postal exception preserves the Government’s immunity for claims tied to the nondelivery or mishandling of mail. The majority relied on the statutory framework of the FTCA and previous decisions that recognize a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for federal torts while preserving enumerated exceptions.

The decision carries immediate practical consequences for individuals and landlords who allege intentional diversion or suppression of mail. The Postal Service had warned that, without robust protection, it could face a wave of litigation given the scale of its operations. The agency handles roughly 300 million mail pieces each day, a fact the Court noted in assessing the policy context of the exception. Konan’s counsel, Eash Anand, argued in response that “We know Congress did not want to immunize USPS wholesale,” pointing to past instances in which similar warnings of massive litigation did not materialize.

By resolving the circuit split in favor of expansive immunity, the ruling narrows the path for federal money-damages claims tied to mail nondelivery. Plaintiffs alleging intentional misconduct by postal employees will face significant barriers in federal court and may need to rely on administrative remedies, state-law avenues where available, or federal statutes that do not invoke the postal exception. The decision will shape litigation strategy and accountability mechanisms for postal operations and could prompt Congress to reassess statutory boundaries if lawmakers seek a different balance between immunity and redress.