Body
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Americans cannot sue the Postal Service over missing, lost and undelivered mail, even when employees deliberately refuse to deliver it. In a 5-4 decision, the court rejected the claim of a Texas landlord, Lebene Konan, who said postal workers intentionally withheld her mail for years.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for a majority of five conservative justices, said the federal law that generally bars lawsuits against the Postal Service for missing and undelivered mail also covers “the intentional nondelivery of mail.” The majority’s reading effectively extended the statute’s shield to situations involving alleged deliberate non-delivery.
Konan brought her case after she and her tenants, according to court documents summarized by the Associated Press, faced years of mail problems in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, including in Euless, Texas. The dispute centered on whether employees at a local post office intentionally refused to deliver mail belonging to Konan and her tenants.
According to court documents described in the report, Konan discovered that the mailbox key for one of her rental properties had been changed without her knowledge, which she said prevented her from collecting and distributing tenants’ mail. After she contacted the post office, she was told she would not receive a new key or regular delivery until she proved she owned the property, documents say she did later.
Konan alleged that even after postal oversight officials instructed delivery, the problems continued. She said two employees marked some mail as undeliverable or return to sender, and she argued that she and her tenants did not receive important items including bills, medications and car titles, while also saying she lost rental income as tenants moved out.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the protection is broad but does not reach circumstances where the choice not to deliver mail “was driven by malicious reasons.” Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Sotomayor and the other liberal justices in dissent.
The Associated Press report also said the Trump administration had warned that ruling for Konan would allow a wave of similar lawsuits against the Postal Service. The Supreme Court’s decision, by upholding the Postal Service’s immunity in this type of claim, closes the door to Konan’s attempt to proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, according to the report.
The case comes from Konan’s lawsuit framed around the reach of the “special postal exemption” to the Federal Tort Claims Act, a statute that generally allows certain lawsuits against the government. Tuesday’s ruling places additional limits on how plaintiffs can use that pathway when their claims involve missing or intentionally withheld mail.