Frustrated by missing mail, one American took the Postal Service to court

The case focuses on whether the special postal exemption to the Federal Tort Claims Act applies when postal employees intentionally fail to deliver letters and packages.

“We’re going to be faced with, I think, a ton of suits about mail,” Frederick Liu, assistant to the Solicitor General for the Department of Justice, warned the justices during oral arguments last month. He predicted that if the landlord wins the case, people will infer their mail didn’t arrive “because of a rude comment that they heard, or what have you.”

The federal tort law allows a private individual to sue the federal government for monetary damages if a federal employee hurts them or damages their property by acting negligently.

But Congress created multiple exceptions to the law, including one for the Postal Service, shielding it from lawsuits over missing or late mail. The exception says the post office can’t be sued for “loss, miscarriage or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.” Definitions of those words have become the crux of the case before the Supreme Court.

Last month, some justices appeared to question the government’s claim that USPS is shielded from such lawsuits. But concern was expressed about opening the doors to frivolous litigation. Justice Samuel Alito suggested people might believe carriers intentionally didn’t deliver mail because they didn’t receive a tip at Christmas or they were scared by a “big dog that ran up to the door.”

“What will the consequences be if all these suits are filed and they have to be litigated?” Alito asked. “Is the cost of a first-class letter going to be $3 now?”

A two-year battle over missing mail

Easha Anand, a lawyer for the landlord, has accused the government of “fearmongering about endless litigation.” She argued it’s unusual for someone to experience the level of mistreatment Lebene Konan did and contends the USPS would still retain immunity for most postal matter-related harms even if the court rules in the landlord’s favor.

“These sorts of allegations, I think, will be rare,” she said in court.

Konan, a landlord, real estate agent and insurance agent, claims two employees at a post office in Euless, Texas, part of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, deliberately didn't deliver mail belonging to her and her tenants because she alleges they didn't like that she is Black and owns multiple properties.

According to court documents, the dispute began when Konan discovered the mailbox key for one of her rental properties had been changed without her knowledge, preventing her from collecting and distributing tenants’ mail from the box. When she contacted the local post office, she was told she wouldn’t receive a new key or regular delivery until she proved she owned the property. She did so, the documents say, but the mail problems continued, despite the USPS Inspector General instructing the mail to be delivered.

Konan alleges the employees marked some of the mail as undeliverable or return to sender. Konan and her tenants failed to receive important mail such as bills, medications and car titles, according to the lawsuit. Konan also claims she lost rental income because some tenants moved out due to the situation.

After filing dozens of complaints with postal officials, Konan finally filed a lawsuit under the 1946 Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which has now made its way to the nation's highest court. A decision in the case is expected to be issued next year.

Konan, reached by email, declined to comment while the case was still pending, on advice of her lawyer.

Does the postal exemption apply or not?

While a federal district court in Texas dismissed Konan's FTCA claims, arguing they fell under the postal exemption, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed part of that decision last year.

The judges disagreed with the lower court's determination that Konan's claims were precluded because they arose out of a “loss” or a “miscarriage.” Rather, the judges said Konan's case doesn't fall into one of those “limited situations” because it involved the intentional act of not delivering the mail.

“Because the conduct alleged in this case does not fall squarely within the exceptions for ‘loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission,’ sovereign immunity does not bar Konan’s FTCA claims,” the judges wrote.

The appellate court sided with the lower court's decision to dismiss Konan's separate claim against the individual postal workers.

The USPS, which declined to comment, appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kevin Kosar, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a public policy think tank, who studies postal matters, said he believes it's incorrect for the government to argue the postal exemption covers the intentional failure to deliver mail.

Kosar said he also doubts there will be a deluge of lawsuits if the court rules narrowly in the case, questioning whether aggrieved postal customers could even find an attorney willing to sue the USPS.

He asked: “What lawyer, for example, wants to file a suit and spends years in the courts because someone spent 78 cents on a first-class stamp and their letter got lost?”