Supreme Court lets postal workers off the hook for undelivered mail

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court shut down a Texas woman’s lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service on Tuesday, ruling the government is exempt from claims that intentional delivery failures amounted to a racially motivated harassment campaign. 

In a divided ruling, the court held that Congress barred these claims — even in cases where a postal worker intentionally failed to deliver an individual’s mail. 

“Given the frequency of postal workers’ interactions with citizens, those suits would arise so often that they would create a significant burden for the government and the courts,” Justice Clarence Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority. “And their cost to taxpayers would depend on the value and importance of the mail’s contents, over which the government typically has no control.” 

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — both appointed by George W. Bush — and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — both appointed by Donald Trump — joined Thomas’ opinion.  

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a Barack Obama appointee, led the dissent, stating that the ruling transforms Congress’ postal exception rather than honoring it. Sotomayor said the majority deviated from the statute’s text out of their concern about opening the floodgates to claims against the Postal Service. 

“Ultimately, this regime is the consequence of Congress’ choice to have the exception turn on certain types of misconduct, rather than providing the Postal Service with a blanket exception,” Sotomayor wrote. “It is not the role of the judiciary to supplant the choice Congress made because it would have chosen differently.” 

Justices Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, joined Sotomayor’s dissent. 

Lebene Konan sued two USPS employees over mail delivery issues at her properties in Euless, Texas. She says Raymond Rojas and Jason Drake began a harassment campaign in 2020 that included changing ownership records to suggest a white tenant was the owner instead of Konan, who is Black. According to Konan, the mail carriers changed the locks on the post office box, put signs on her mailbox announcing her tenants would not receive packages and imposed an ID policy that only applied to her. 

Konan filed over 50 unsuccessful administrative complaints but said she was forced to resort to a lawsuit as the ongoing issues prevented her and her tenants from receiving important mail like doctor’s bills, credit card statements, car titles and property tax statements. 

An exemption under the Federal Tort Claims Act gives the federal government immunity for claims arising out of the loss, miscarriage or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter. The government argued even the intentional failure to deliver mail is covered by the provision, barring suits like Konan’s. 

The Fifth Circuit disagreed, however, holding that the intentional nondelivery was not a loss, miscarriage or negligent transmission of mail. 

The five-justice majority reversed, finding the “miscarriage” of mail ordinarily included intentional delivery failures and “loss” typically refers to any nondelivery of mail. Thomas said the postal exception shouldn’t only apply if the Postal Service lost the mail. 

“Congress could have written the postal exception to apply only when ‘the Postal Service lost, miscarried, or negligently transmitted’ mail,” Thomas wrote. “But Congress applied the postal exception to all ‘claim[s] arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission’ of mail.” 

But the dissenters argued Congress didn’t paint with a broad brush when designing the postal exception. Sotomayor said that lawmakers identified certain types of misconduct, intending for the protections to be less encompassing than other forms of federal immunity. 

Other exceptions are triggered by types of government conduct, Sotomayor said, not the harm a plaintiff experiences. 

“The key question is thus as follows: What kind of misconduct falls within the ‘words and reason’ of the postal exception?” Sotomayor wrote. “All signs point to Congress leaving intentional misconduct outside of the exception’s scope.” 

Sotomayor said additional safeguards in the Federal Tort Claims Act would prevent a flood of frivolous lawsuits. 

“Liability for the United States will arise only in the rare situation in which the employee’s intentional conduct is tortious, falls within the scope of her employment, and falls outside of the due care and discretionary-function exceptions,” Sotomayor wrote. 

Follow @KelseyReichmann

Follow @kelseyreichmann.bsky.social