SCOTUS Votes 5-4: Shock USPS Outcome!

The Supreme Court just handed the U.S. Postal Service a shield against lawsuits even when its employees deliberately refuse to deliver your mail.

Story Snapshot

Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on February 24, 2026, that USPS cannot be sued for intentional mail nondelivery under federal tort law
Texas landlord Lebene Konan alleged postal workers refused to deliver her mail due to racial discrimination, harming her rental business
Justice Thomas’s majority opinion interprets “loss” and “miscarriage” to cover any failure to deliver mail, whether accidental or deliberate
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson, argues the ruling shields malicious government conduct from accountability
Businesses reliant on mail delivery, particularly newspapers, fear reduced recourse for service failures that damage their operations

When Government Workers Can Ignore Your Mail

Lebene Konan ran a rental property business in Texas that depended on reliable mail delivery. Postal workers allegedly decided they would not deliver to her address, and Konan believed the refusal stemmed from racial discrimination. The consequences were not abstract. Her business suffered as rental correspondence went undelivered. She sued the Postal Service, the individual workers, and the federal government for emotional distress and interference with her business operations. The district court dismissed her claims under a federal law exception. Then the Fifth Circuit reversed, ruling that intentional acts fell outside the exception’s scope.

The Supreme Court took the case and reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the five-justice majority, interpreted the Federal Tort Claims Act’s postal exception broadly. The law bars lawsuits for “loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.” Thomas concluded these terms cover any failure of mail to reach its destination, regardless of whether postal employees acted negligently or deliberately. The majority applied a textualist reading, finding no statutory language distinguishing between accidental errors and intentional refusals to deliver.

The decision effectively immunizes USPS from tort liability when employees choose not to deliver mail, even for discriminatory or malicious reasons. Konan’s Federal Tort Claims Act case ended, though she may pursue other claims against individual workers separately. The ruling establishes a nationwide precedent that closes the courthouse door to Americans whose businesses or personal affairs suffer from deliberate mail failures. This goes beyond protecting the government from garden-variety negligence lawsuits. It removes accountability for intentional misconduct.

Four Justices Say the Majority Got It Wrong

Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissent joined by an unusual coalition: Justices Kagan and Jackson from the liberal wing, plus Justice Gorsuch, typically aligned with conservatives. The dissenters argued that “loss” and “miscarriage” describe errors and accidents, not deliberate acts. Congress crafted the postal exception to shield the government from liability when mail goes astray through routine mishaps, not when postal workers weaponize mail delivery. Sotomayor accused the majority of expanding federal immunity beyond congressional intent.

The dissent highlights a fundamental disagreement about statutory interpretation and government accountability. When Congress wrote the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1946, it created exceptions to protect certain government functions from lawsuits. The postal exception made sense for lost packages and delayed letters, the inevitable friction of moving millions of mail pieces daily. Extending that protection to cover a postal worker who decides your mail does not deserve delivery transforms a practical liability shield into a license for misconduct. That distinction matters to anyone who believes government employees should face consequences when they abuse their authority.

Real-World Casualties of Unchecked Immunity

The National Newspaper Association responded swiftly to the ruling. Chair Martha Diaz Askenazy stated that USPS must have accountability, calling on Congress to act. Newspapers depend on mail for subscriber deliveries, and service failures directly impact their revenue and viability. When mail delivery becomes unreliable and businesses cannot seek damages for losses, the economic harm ripples through communities. Small firms relying on timely mail for invoices, payments, and customer communications face similar vulnerabilities. The ruling removes a financial incentive for USPS to prevent or remedy deliberate service failures.

Legal experts at Faegre Drinker confirmed the decision establishes immunity for any failure of mail to reach its destination, including intentional acts. The Cato Institute characterized the problem as an “invincibility gap” where constitutional safeguards meant to check government power become suggestions rather than enforceable rules. This case exemplifies how expansive immunity doctrines insulate government entities operating in commercial roles from the accountability private businesses face. A private delivery company that deliberately refused service could be sued for damages. The federal government now enjoys a privilege its private competitors do not.

The Postal Service's Recent Supreme Court Win Is Bad News for Government Accountabilityhttps://t.co/0zvWIh5DDo

— José Colón (@JoseEColon) February 26, 2026

The decision does not merely affect one landlord in Texas. It reshapes the relationship between citizens and a government agency that touches nearly every American household and business. When postal workers can intentionally withhold mail without institutional consequences, the potential for abuse grows. Discrimination claims like Konan’s become harder to remedy through civil lawsuits. Businesses harmed by deliberate service disruptions must absorb losses without recourse. The ruling prioritizes protecting government operations over compensating victims of government misconduct, a choice that weakens deterrence against future abuses.

Where Congress Must Step In

The Supreme Court interprets laws; Congress writes them. If this outcome offends common sense principles of accountability, the legislative branch holds the power to amend the Federal Tort Claims Act. The National Newspaper Association and other affected industries are pushing for statutory reforms that distinguish between negligent mail handling and intentional refusal to deliver. Such amendments could preserve immunity for routine errors while allowing lawsuits when postal employees act with deliberate malice or discrimination. Whether Congress will act remains uncertain, but the constitutional design provides a remedy for judicial decisions that stray from sound policy.

Americans over forty remember when government accountability meant something beyond empty rhetoric. This ruling represents a troubling trend where federal immunity expands to cover conduct that would subject any private citizen or business to legal consequences. The facts are straightforward: postal workers allegedly refused to deliver mail, a business suffered harm, and the Supreme Court said the government cannot be held liable. That outcome should trouble anyone who believes government power requires meaningful checks. The courthouse doors just closed a little tighter for citizens seeking justice against federal misconduct.